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.

Vox Populi

If you’re like me and enjoy reading something excruciatingly dumb every now and then, then you can rarely go wrong with the Letters to the Editors pages of local newspapers. I usually find myself wondering, “If these are the ones they saw fit to publish, just how awful must the unfit ones have been?” And today’s three letters are no different.

Let’s start with C. Dale German of Bethany, OK, who has a nuanced and original take on the current condition of these great United States.

One nation under God

Ha ha! Just kidding. He’s just gonna regurgitate dishonest god-humper boilerplate. This asshole has totally drunk the “1950s were a utopia” Kool-Aid about the 1950s that too many Americans gullibly believe, and he wants us all to know how deluded he is.

America was once a civil place.

Even our Wars were Civil!

Democrats and Republicans fought from opposite political perspectives yet were both proud Americans.

In fact, just like now, they would NEVER shut up about what proud Americans they are. It’s practically the only thing politicians ever say in this country.

Families could watch TV with small children and never hear profanity.

Talk about first world problems. Oh, I’m sorry, I meant fucking god damn first world problems, you cunt-faced son of a bitch.

School days began with Bible reading, a salute to the flag and the Lord’s Prayer.

That flag reference sandwiched between two religious references is very revealing. As much as they yammer on about the evils of idolatry, the flag might as well be a god to fundamentalists.

We went to work and left our houses unlocked.

Then you were idiots, seeing as crime rates were about the same in the 1950s as they are today, and are actually steeply declining over the last two decades. The only thing that’s changed is now you have sensationalistic 24 hour news channels constantly bombarding you with real life horror stories.

The American military was strong and respected.

That’s because we’d just dropped a fucking nuke on Japan. The “respect” was bullshit. People just didn’t want to get fucking nuked.

Americans felt blessed to live in America.

We still do. I just had a conversation the other day about how happy I am not to live in fucking Mexico where the fucking cartels are leaving duffel bags full of severed heads in elementary schools. The difference is that I don’t feel the need to buttress those feelings with glurgy, sentimental garbage and lies like you do.

“Blue laws” supported businesses that closed on Sunday.

Free enterprise!

Those who don’t remember this America don’t know how heartbreaking it is for those who do remember the America we lost.

It wasn’t lost, because you can’t lose something that never existed.

For sure there was poverty, segregation and social ills to be cured in an evolving America.

*Snort!* Yeah, America in the 50s was great! We saluted the flag and didn’t say the word “shit” on TV! Sure, there was crime, injustice, racism, sexism, higher poverty rates, higher illiteracy rates and all. But we had blue laws! (By the way–blue laws still exist in many cities…)

But we remember a nice country.

That’s because you were a spoiled little brat who was shielded from the harsh realities of the country you lived in. Social ills and injustice are perpetuated by silence, and silence is exactly what a sanctimonious, censorious, prudish, sheltered society like 1950s America breeds. That’s why you were so content with your fucking censored TV and chintzy American flag crap while black people were being beaten in the streets just for protesting Jim Crow laws. “Yeah, there was segregation and poverty, but I remember a nice country.” Shut the hell up.

School teachers and clergy wore suits and were respected.

If you paid school teachers a decent wage maybe they could afford more suits. Or, you know, feed and clothe their children. But the suits seem to be what’s important to you, and if that’s what it takes to get you to pay teachers more, then I guess I can go with it.

Men respected women as ladies and women responded as ladies.

“As ladies”. There is so much packed into those two words that I could write an entire blog post unraveling it. (Don’t worry. I won’t.) Let’s just say that this is the 1950’s “suits=respect” way of saying “Bitches stayed in their place.”

We can hope that not all is lost.

I hope all of it is lost. I don’t want to live in a society where superficial crap like words on TV, saluting a flag and wearing a suit are more important than real life concerns like poverty and injustice. Take your shallow-minded, cotton-candy, shiny-surface-with-a-rotten-core vision of America and shove it.

When those who remember are gone and only those who don’t remember remain, we can hope today’s crass, vulgar, obscenity of incivility will one day fade into history in a born-again America true to its founding purpose — one nation under God.

Or we could just keep living our lives and wait for all you pathetic old fogies to die so we don’t have to hear about this crap any more. The really funny thing is that 60 years from now people will be saying these exact same things about the times we’re currently living in. Humans are nothing if not predictable animals.

Our next subject, Wayne Hull of Yukon, OK, has some serious fucking Fatwa Envy going on:

Regarding the staging of “The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told” at Civic Center Music Hall: Why would anyone during the holidays condemn an actual religion of peace? Imagine the ferocious protests if the same venue was being used to stage “The Most Fabulous Ramadan.” Why mock people of faith who celebrate their faith?

Because it’s funny? It’s telling that every time Christianity is mocked, the response is a furious protest by Christians claiming that Christians don’t do furious protests so fuck the Muzzies. They are so jealous of Muslims they can barely contain it.

What’s hilarious about ridiculing the story of Christ, likely using the most exaggerated homosexual caricatures in the presentation, and infusing sex acts into a holiday otherwise devoid of promiscuity?

Christmas? Devoid of promiscuity? Are you fucking high? The whole damn holiday revolves around a teenage girl giving birth out of wedlock.

Oh, and notice how he says “likely” when describing the contents of the play he’s furiously not-protesting. That means he hasn’t seen the play he’s criticizing. Fucking typical.

How is this anything but an affront to people whose beliefs are different and, consequently, threatening?

Pretty sure you’re the one protesting people whose beliefs you view as different and threatening. Hasn’t that been the whole theme of every single sentence prior to this one?

They made a play about gay Jesus. Fucking get over it. You didn’t even fucking see it, and no one is forcing you or anybody else to watch it. Yet you protest its very existence. You, my friend, are the one being intolerant.

Last year the Obama administration openly condemned an American citizen for a YouTube video poking fun at the Prophet Muhammad.

This would be a good time to remind everyone that the term “religion of peace” in regards to Islam was coined by George W. Bush. Pandering to Muslims is nothing new, and both parties do it. It’s not right, but it’s not exclusive to Obama, either.

Now our elected officials waffle with another public piece that, if paralleled in regards to Islam, would likely result in mass riots.

More fatwa envy. American Christians really, really, REALLY wish they could get away with the violence that goes on in the Muslim world. They’d love to riot and chop people’s heads off if they could.

Christians are supposed to shut up passively as their faith is ridiculed. If they speak up, they’re chastised as being bigots or, at least, anti-First Amendment.

And rightly so, because that’s exactly what they are. But no one is calling for you to be censored. What you’re asking for, on the other hand…

Those who support a “gay agenda” must know how deeply regressive this play impacts their desire to be recognized as part of a larger society.

Only amongst small minded bigots like you. Normal people don’t respond to a gay Jesus play by thinking, “Well, I guess that means I should deny gays their rights!” That’s not how human brains work.

The Christmas story isn’t a story of gay sex, let alone gay persons.

See? The gay people don’t need your fucking approbation anyhow. You’ve already excluded them, so why should they censor their play to appease your bigoted ass?

It’s a Middle Eastern story of one man whose life changed the world forever.

Which is why we Christians fight tooth and nail to make sure it never changes again….

…And lose every time.

And just so it doesn’t look like I’m unfairly picking on my home state, let’s move on to Pennsylvania. Central Pennsylvania, to be more precise. And as we all know, central Pennsylvania is the most important Pennsylvania, because it’s central to all that other Pennsylvania. And it’s got those fires that never, ever, ever go out.*

But that’s not what the real problem is. Take it away, Chris Hicks of East Pennsboro Township.

If the question is gay marriage, God has the answer

Please tell me Jesus finally proposed to Muhammad.

In response to Shirley Ericson’s letter, “United Methodist church is acting against a courageous minister“:

Contrary to Ms. Ericson’s opinion, God is not this grandfatherly-cosmic-casual-genie that looks down on us and is OK with our sinful condition.

Grandfatherly Cosmic Casual Genie sounds a lot better when you sing it to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon theme. Seriously, try it.

And why would god even be a genie, casual or otherwise? I read Shirley Ericson’s letter. She at no point implies that Jeebus is played by Shaq or Robin Williams, or that he ever grants any wishes (see what I did there? Prayer is bullshit!). The only person talking about this weird genie Jesus is you, bub.

Anyways, if gob doesn’t like our sinful condition, he shouldn’t have created it in the first place. He chose to give us free will and put tempting fruit in the garden. If he’s unhappy with the result, he has no one to blame but himself. Would you put a steak on your floor then beat your dog for eating it?

His word is clear and infallible. It does not change, while a culture’s moral compass becomes clouded and is in decline.

How exactly can a compass be in decline? Maybe he’s referring to the Golden Compass film franchise…

His word is rock solid, firm and clear.

Weirdly, this is also true of his dick.

Sin is bad because it hurts the heart of God.

What is it about fundamentalist religion that turns its followers into prattling five year olds? The baby-talk that comes from these people is just plain fucking creepy. The above sentence should never be spoken by any human being over the age of 8, unless they have, like, Down’s syndrome or something. And even then they should keep it to a minimum.

But apparently, in this guy’s puerile mind, an omnipotent being can be hurt. How? How could a perfect being be harmed in any way? If he has ANY vulnerabilities or shortcomings whatsoever, then he is not perfect and omnipotent.  It makes no sense to speak of a perfect being feeling or wanting or needing anything at all. And, with one fell swoop, I’ve just erased the motivation for all but the most deistic forms of religion. Sorry about that. I know how you guys hate logic.

When will we quit trying to pursue our own fleshly lusts and sinful desires and seek to live sacrificial lives unto our great, gracious, holy heavenly Father?

When we all lose our god damn minds. So, hopefully never.

For a closing exercise, click on that link above and read Shirley Ericson’s letter, then go back and read Chris Hicks’ again.  These are both Christians, but they are clearly very different kinds of Christians. And I’m not just talking about their views on gay marriage being different. Their brains work differently.  They’re processing information and reacting to it in starkly different ways.

Even before we get to their beliefs and their claims, just the language of the two letters shows striking contrasts. Both letters, for instance, contain a single interrogative sentence. But they use the interrogative for entirely different purposes. Ericson’s interrogative (third paragraph) is a hypothetical in which she presents some evidence and then provides a logical conclusion from it in order to make the reader THINK about their position. She’s challenging her audience to use their minds and reconsider their position.

Now look at Hicks’ interrogative, which I just snarked at above. It’s a lament, intended to get people to stop behaving differently from him and start unquestioningly obeying an authority. It has precisely the OPPOSITE purpose as Ericson’s. And rather than use logic to persuade, he tries to change the reader’s mind by appealing to a cognitive bias humans have to be more trusting of people who look wealthy, clean, beautiful, or powerful. Seriously, would even North Korea use language like his to describe its leader?

The baby-talk is completely absent from Ericson’s letter. Her declarative sentences are more complex than Hicks’, and again she uses them differently. Her declarative sentences consist mostly of statements of fact that are not a matter of belief, such as “This guy will lose his job,” etc. She often uses these facts as premises and conclusions in arguments. For Hicks, EVERY declarative sentence states as fact something that is a matter of his own personal faith. He doesn’t actually state a single faith-free fact anywhere in his letter. Not one. And he doesn’t make any arguments at all. He just declares his own beliefs as absolutely true by fiat, as if he himself were god.

I could go on and on analyzing the differences between the two, but the point should be obvious by now. There are different kinds of Christians, and differences between them run so deep that they alter the very way they process information and interact with the world. Ericson focuses on concrete facts. She then processes these to see what they imply. And if what they imply contradicts what she believes about gay marriage, she adapts her beliefs to the new information. She then proceeds to spell out these premises and conclusions for others, hoping to replicate the process in other minds as well. This is all just a long way of saying she’s a RATIONAL FUCKING PERSON.

Hicks, on the other hand, is a textbooks example of an authoritarian. He associates power with truth and beauty. If someone is powerful, then whatever they say must be true and good. He sees himself as a conduit of this power, and issues demands on its behalf that others assimilate to his thought processes or face dire wrath. So he’s like the Borg, but without any real power. He views communication between humans as a string of commands that others obey the power that he is vicariously channeling from an imaginary being.  And he sees value in others only insofar as they conform to this arbitrary string of commands. Which, again, is just a long way of saying he’s a FUNDAMENTALIST FUCKFACE.

I’m glad there’s no heaven. Spending eternity with these guys would be hell.

 

____________________

*No wonder they based a horror video game on it. That shit is fucking scary.

Gay rights = Civil rights

Civil rights movements are always transgressive in their own time. They break social mores, challenge previously unquestioned biases, and root out traditional moral values to replace them with newer, more progressive ideals. This is true of the abolitionist movement to end slavery, the women’s suffrage movement and subsequent feminist/women’s lib movement, and the civil rights movement for African Americans. In their own day, the “right thinking” traditionalists denounced them as unchristian and anti-biblical. But eventually, they become the new status quo, and the new religious right has to find a way to distance themselves from what their intellectual forebears wrought. Despite the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention specifically formed to defend slavery, you won’t hear Baptists today bringing that talking point up very often.

This creates a problem for god-humpers. The most prominent civil rights movement today is the gay rights movement. God-humpers oppose it, because it involves people living their own lives uninfluenced by a 2,000 book of fables that they believe should control everyone and everything. But the gay rights movement is playing out very much like past civil rights movements–civil rights movements which the fundamentalists now pretend they supported all along (they didn’t).  In fact, the arguments for and against gay marriage in particular are extremely similar to the arguments for and against miscegenation in the first half of the 20th century. In both cases, it was argued that god separated the races/sexes because he never meant for them to marry. In both cases marriage between people of different races/same sexes were argued to be “unnatural”. In both cases it was argued that mixed race kids/children of gay parents would somehow suffer from their parents mixed race/same sex relationship. And in both cases these arguments are complete and utter horseshit. The Loving v. Virginia case of 1967 guaranteed the right to marry to all mixed race couples in all 50 states, and the gay marriage issue is progressing in a very similar fashion, except at a much faster rate. It’ll be legal in all 50 states in maybe 5 to 10 years or so, and even the staunchest opponents seem to realize this.

What to do? The god-humpers want to oppose gay marriage, but they also want to pretend that god-humpers never took the wrong side in the very similar fight over interracial marriage. Well, there’s no way to resolve the cognitive dissonance other than to pretend it’s not real at all. Gay rights has nothing in common with black civil rights! Why, because I SAY SO DAMN IT!

Last month, Pennsylvania’s attorney general refused to defend a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Her website argues: “The issue of same-sex marriage is squarely in the tradition of the struggle for civil rights in the U.S.” That comparison has significant implications for how same-sex marriage advocates treat marriage laws that they disagree with. It also deserves more scrutiny.

No, it really doesn’t. The Pennsylvania judge didn’t just pull that comparison out of her ass. It has been noted again and again by numerous observers of the movement, and has strong historical evidence to support it. Like I said, look up the ruling in the Loving case and read it. Replace the racial stuff with sexual orientation stuff, and it’s easy to see that we are having the exact same argument, just about a different minority.

As a grassroots supervisor for California’s Proposition 8, I was surprised to see numerous yard signs stolen, slashed and defaced. Those responsible were likely law-abiding citizens. Why the exception? Undoubtedly, many felt they were in hand-to-hand political combat against discrimination, hatred and bigotry.

“Grassroots”? Bullshit. Michael Erickson, the author of this garbage, got his law degree at Brigham Young University. So he is probably a Mormon. There was nothing grassroots about the Mormon church’s support for Prop. 8 in California. The church itself funded numerous political operations in hopes of influencing the voting public (something non-profit organizations are not supposed to do), and then lied about their involvement repeatedly, even after documents proving their financial involvement surfaced.

I don’t support vandalizing signs, but if the vandals (misguidedly) thought they were helping fight discrimination, hatred and bigotry, they were merely using the wrong methods to target the right group. Anyone who supported Prop. 8 supported discrimination, hatred and bigotry. That includes you, Mr. Erickson.

I will give him credit for at least recognizing that the people who defaced signage are probably otherwise good people, and will extend the same courtesy to him. I have no doubt that Mr. Erickson opposes any form of violence or vandalism against gays or gay rights supporters, which automatically makes him better than the entire Russian government and a healthy chunk of the Russian people on this issue. But the fact that he is humane in one area of human rights does not cancel out his bigotry in others. In the 1960s there were undoubtedly people who thought blacks should be treated equally….except when it comes to marriage. Mr. Erickson has taken a similar position on gays judging by the rest of his op-ed. It’s a lesser bigotry, but lesser bigotry is still bigotry.

It’s no secret that media coverage disproportionately favors same-sex marriage. A candid admission in the Washington Post explains why “(many journalists) see people opposed to gay rights today as cousins, perhaps distant cousins, of people in the 1950s and 1960s who, citing God and the Bible, opposed black people sitting in the bus seat, or dining at the lunch counter, of their choosing.” (What goes unsaid is that the most influential civil-rights leaders, “citing God and the Bible,” opposed discrimination and segregation on religious grounds.)

Actually, what most often goes unsaid is that in almost every civil rights conflict, the Bible is quoted to support BOTH sides of the issue. This is because the Bible is murky, muddled, contradictory, and irrelevant to modern life. It’s primed to be manipulated and read however the reader wants to read it. Every civil rights movement (including the gay movement) has religious people on both sides, quoting the same scripture to say the opposite thing. It’s almost like the Bible is bullshit or something!

Regrettably, some infamous groups spew anti-gay rhetoric that is hateful and indefensible. But far too often the media amplify these voices and conflate all religious opinion with this easily assailable straw man.

Comparing you to the yahoos at Westboro Baptist Church or the American Family Association would indeed be tearing down a straw man. But that doesn’t mean that your views are not hateful or indefensible. Lesser bigotries, as before.

As such, they entirely ignore, as a Deseret News editorial put it, our “morally complex and pluralistic world” (June 30). A world where some religious faiths that only endorse marriage between a man and a woman also support nondiscrimination laws for gays and lesbians. And a world where some gays and lesbians oppose same-sex marriage “citing a belief that children benefit most from opposite-sex parents.”

Those are both minority opinions. Sure they count to some extent, but they don’t represent either group. More importantly, yes, we do live in a morally complex and pluralistic world. But that’s exactly why religion is growing more and more irrelevant every day, and why more and more people are leaving their churches. Religions too often speak in absolutes, in black-and-white morality, in unquestioned divine authority, in faith unsupported by facts and evidence, in the primacy of tradition over a society that adapts to improve the lives of real people instead of please the whims of invisible imaginary people. Religion just doesn’t fit any more, and it is slowly dying as a result.

Unfortunately, the situation is unlikely to change unless this civil-rights comparison is scrutinized. Here are three differences that deserve attention:

Scrutinize it all you want. It will change nothing, because your starting position, the very beliefs you stand on, are what’s really wrong with your argument.

First, laws prohibiting interracial marriage were designed to promote white supremacy. That’s why a unanimous Supreme Court invalidated these laws for having “no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination.” In sharp contrast as one gay-marriage advocate acknowledges, “Unlike racial segregation, to which anti-gay laws are often compared, the traditional restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples was not designed, in and of itself, to denigrate or harm same-sex couples.”

“One gay marriage advocate said something stupid, so that makes the stupid thing true!”

When North Carolina outlawed gay marriage in 2012, do you think that had any purpose other than to reinforce straight privilege? Straight people get the benefits of marriage, gay people don’t. Therefore, privilege. Straight people get to visit their dying spouses in the hospital, gay people don’t get that privilege. The law was designed specifically to reserve certain privileges to straight couples and deny them to gays. To argue that it serves any other purpose is absurd.

As for “traditional marriage”, there’s no such thing. Racial segregation has a long and storied tradition as well, and not all forms of it were “designed” to reinforce privilege in one race. Many, like marriage, weren’t designed at all, but instead arose organically and only became enshrined in law later on. Regardless of whether opposite-sex marriage was ALWAYS designed to denigrate gays, there’s no questioning that RIGHT NOW it is. And that’s what matters.

Second, the Civil Rights movement, according to noted leader John Lewis, “was built upon deep-seated religious convictions” and, without such faith, “would have been like a bird without wings.” But it’s hard to imagine prominent gay-marriage advocates describing their movement as “built upon deep-seated religious convictions.” Indeed, it has often been hostile to religion.

To be sure, some of that hostility stems from perceived, and sometimes very real, denigration by some religious adherents. Nevertheless, the different roots of these movements appear to manifest sharply contrasting fruits. Compare, for example, the gospel-inspired Civil Rights anthem “We Shall Overcome” to the now popular mantra “Get on the right side of history!” Or compare the Christian perseverance evident in this preacher’s promise, “We will win you with the power of our capacity to endure,” with the conventional pride revealed in this politician’s bluster, “It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not.”

The past civil rights movements also took place in a time when religion had more political strength than it does today. As I already mentioned, our society is going through a slow process of secularization, and religion’s power is waning. It should come as no surprise, then, that religion has less of a role to play in current issues.

This doesn’t change the fact that there are indeed many Christians who support gay rights. As I discussed above, this shouldn’t be surprising to anybody, because the Bible says only what the person quoting it wants it to say.

Third, whereas segregationists fought to preserve their social status and political power, many in the religious coalition for man-woman marriage seek, in the words of President Obama, “to preserve and strengthen families.” Although in favor of same-sex marriage now, even President Obama acknowledges that their “impulse” to strengthen families “is the right one.”

Bullshit. “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!” was a constant refrain amongst segregationists. It was alleged, without evidence, that mixed race families would be unstable, that allowing interracial marriage would lead to black men raping white daughters, that mixed race children would not turn out as well as “pure” children. The gay marriage opponents make all the same unsupportable claims, saying children of gay parents will turn out bad, comparing gays to pedophiles, and insisting that only opposite sex marriages can be stable. Nothing has changed except the identity of the minority being denied its rights.

Notwithstanding these differences, discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation should be addressed. Marriage, however, is about more than civil rights for individuals. Marriage has profound implications for a historically vulnerable and underrepresented class of persons — children.

That’s what the opponents of interracial marriage said. They were wrong, and so are you. Their beliefs were based on superstitious misapprehensions of a minority, and so are yours. Because of white privilege, they couldn’t see (or wouldn’t see) how they were harming others. The same goes for you and your straight privilege.

In the fortieth year since Roe v. Wade, public opinion has settled on a middle ground that recognizes the concerns of both pro-choice and pro-life advocates — approving of abortion for threats to a mother’s health, rape, incest, and birth defects, but disapproving for elective birth control, selecting birth traits or avoiding parental responsibility.

If the public discussion on marriage is not prematurely curtailed, public opinion might yet arrive at a common ground that recognizes the dignity of gay and lesbian Americans while also preserving marriage between a man and a woman as the surest foundation for the future of children.

How would you like it if we found a “middle ground” when it comes to YOUR rights? You seem to be fine when the rights of gays and women are on the line, but what if we start curtailing yours because of “the children”? That sound good to you? Would you like it if the people took a vote on your marriage? Would you like it if we declared, based on no evidence, that Mormons make bad parents, and that therefore you can’t get married? Would that be okay with you? Would you feel that we were “respecting” your “dignity” if we prohibited you from visiting a dying spouse in the hospital just because we disagree with your faith/lifestyle, based on such stupid arguments? You can’t respect people’s dignity while denying them certain basic privileges which you reserve to yourself. So long as you insist on doing so, you are a bigot, and you are discriminating.

Oh, and the Mormon church didn’t allow blacks to be ministers until…what? 1975? 1976? Some time around then. But you’d rather we forgot all about that, wouldn’t you, Mr. Civil Rights Man?

Cloning the Language

There’s a widely cited term in the skeptical community about a commonly observed phenomenon in the gullible dingleberry community. Crank Magnetism, as it’s called, is the tendency of those who accept one ludicrous pseudoscientific or otherwise demonstrably false belief to accept others as well. So a creationist like Phillip Johnson also turns out to be an HIV/AIDS denialist.  Or a global warming denialist might also be a stem cell denialist. Essentially fucktardation in one realm of thought correlates positively with other realms of thought also being fucktarded. Stupidity spreads through one’s brain like the virus you deny exists, and makes your thoughts on a whole range of topics utterly fucktarded.

This is certainly true of the Discovery Institute, the primary driver behind the ball-crunchingly fucktarded pseudo-theory of Intelligent Design. They also are fucktarded in several other scientific domains, including the one I’m looking at today: Human Cloning. It also provides a perfect example of another odious practice that the superstitious and bigoted like to do: Appropriating Language. Observe:

Some worry most about the eventual birth of a cloned baby—an event that is still a long way off. But therapeutic cloning already poses an acute threat to human dignity.

It’s starting to reach the point where I cringe whenever I hear the word “dignity”, because it is more and more being used to attack things that have nothing to do with dignity. The damn Catholic Church claims that IVF techniques are an affront to human dignity, for fuck’s sake. Generally, “dignity” is more and more starting to mean “some airy idea or arbitrary rule that we will treat as more important than actual physical human beings.”

As Charles Krauthammer, who served on George W. Bush’s President’s Council on Bioethics, warned in the New Republic in 2002, creating cloned embryos for research—now accomplished—is “dangerous” because it reduces the cloned embryo to “mere thingness,” justifying “the most ruthless exploitation.”

Quoting Krauthammer, eh? That’s fucking hilarious, seeing as he once called you guys’ pet theory “tarted-up creationism” and thinks you Intelligent Design nuts are scientific phonies. But let’s see what this Iraq War supporter has to say about “dignity”.

He went on to say:

It is the ultimate in desensitization . . . The problem, one could almost say, is not what cloning does to the embryo, but what it does to us . . . Creating a human embryo just so it can be used and then destroyed undermines the very foundation of the moral prudence that informs the entire enterprise of genetic research: the idea that, while a human embryo may not be a person, it is not nothing. Because if it is nothing, then everything is permitted. And if everything is permitted, then there are no fences, no safeguards, no bottom.

Hey, Charles. Hyperbole just called. He said he wants you to tone it down, since even he’s embarrassed by this. Also, notice how he’s picked up the terms “exploitation” and “desensitization” from other issues and stuck them onto an issue to which they simply don’t apply. Remember, this is a single cell that we are talking about. One human zygote–that’s what therapeutic cloning produces. That’s it. It has no feeling, no thoughts, no experiences, no nerves, no brain. There is nothing there to be harmed in any way. A single cell has no dignity. It can’t be exploited. It has no senses. It is not a person. But in the name of “exploitation” and “desensitization” and “human dignity” we need to outlaw experimenting on it at the cost of valuable medical knowledge which could save thousands of real human beings.

Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine a trolley track with a fork in it. You’re at the switch. You can decide which track to send an out of control trolley down by pulling the switch.  On one track, there is a man tied to it. On the other track, a rack of petri dishes containing one thousand human zygotes. If you don’t pull the switch, the trolley will hit the man and kill him. If you pull the switch, it will hit the petri dishes and destroy all 1,000 embryos. What do you do?

If you answer “Pull the switch”, then you don’t believe zygotes are really people, since you’d be willing to destroy 1,000 of them to save one life.

If you say, “Don’t pull the switch and let the man die,” then you’re a fucking asshole.

The only effective preventative is to enact a comprehensive legal ban on human SCNT, not just the uses to which a cloned embryo may be put. Contrary to what the science intelligentsia, the biotechnology industry, and the mainstream media might claim, banning human SCNT is a step that is widely supported internationally. Indeed, in 2005, the General Assembly of the United Nationsvoted overwhelmingly in support of a non-binding resolution calling upon member states “to prohibit all forms of human cloning.”

Is there anything that the UN HASN’T issued a non-binding resolution on? I mean, Jesus, just about anybody can suck the right diplomatic cock and get a non-binding resolution through in the UN. And you gotta love how the right wing fuckberries rail against the evils of the UN and kowtowing to the international community…right up until they agree with them on something.

The devil will be found in how the term “cloning” is defined. In particular, we should be on the lookout for phony bans that actually legalize the SCNT process using human DNA. For example, many proposals would only outlaw “reproductive cloning.” But as we have seen, such a “ban” would not outlaw cloning at all, merelyone potential use that could be made of embryo made through cloning.

Yeah, kinda sucks when people use that tactic of  making a law vaguely worded so that it doesn’t actually do what you claim it does. Now, about those “academic freedom” laws that the Discovery Institute keeps pushing in state after state….

Outlawing human cloning would provide salutatory benefits

No, it wouldn’t. All it would do is deprive us of life-saving research in order to protect single cells. There is no plus side to this.

First, it would deprive cloning researchers of the funds to further perfect human cloning techniques.

Hear that? That’s every sane person on earth asking, “How the fuck is that a salutatory benefit?”

Outlawing human cloning would also be a clarion call to our scientists demanding that they stay within proper moral parameters as they serve society through the pursuit of knowledge.

I send this message out to all god-humpers, all sanctimonious twats, all conservative evangelicals and every moral crusader in the country:

YOU DO NOT GET TO DEFINE THE “PROPER MORAL PARAMETERS” FOR THE REST OF US. FUCK OFF.

And it would protect women.

You have got to be shitting me.

Recall that human eggs are the essential ingredients in the cloning recipe. As I wrote here last month, the need for human eggs in cloning threatens a great “human egg rush.”

But retrieving human eggs can be very dangerous to women’s health and fecundity. Banning cloning can thus prevent the further objectification of the female biological function.

There’s more appropriation for you. “Objectification”. Except for the fact that this issue has nothing to do with objectification or feminist critiques thereof.

This shit really pisses me of.  This asshole is leaving out the part where women volunteer their eggs in order to further scientific knowledge. It’s not like scientists are running through the streets probing every woman they find in order to get at her precious, precious ova. Women–grown up, adult women–donate the eggs of their own free will.

And yet, this guy is trying to sound like a feminist while leaving out a woman’s ability to make her own choices about her own body. I’m gonna call this bullshit Patriarchal Pseudo-Feminism. Basically, it means infantilizing women, treating them like they are unable to determine their own lives and choices, just like patriarchy always does to women, but disguising it in the language of feminism. I see it a lot. I’ve seen it used to attack pornography, abortion, IVF, contraception and a host of other issues relating to women. It frustrates me even more than overt sexism or misogyny, since at least if someone is being blatantly sexist they aren’t trying to lie to me about what a piece of shit they are.

But this fucknugget is treating women like they’re helpless children who need the law to protect them from evil scientists, and trying to make it look like he’s pro-woman for this. Fuck that. I’m not standing for it. Women can make their own fucking choices about their own fucking eggs. And (assuming they’re properly informed) if they want to give them to a scientist for a cloning experiment, the rest of us should respect their decision and not make condescending, patriarchal comments about how we need to protect them from themselves. Fuck you, Discovery Institute.

And any time you hear someone demanding that we need to ban something in the name of feminism, but they conveniently leave out the notions of informed consent and a woman determining her own life, tell hem to fuck off with their patriarchal wolf in feminist clothing.

Finally, on a positive note, once human cloning becomes beyond the pale, we could begin to row in the direction of areas of biotechnology that are morally licit, freeing human and financial resources for the pursuit of the abundant avenues of moral andefficacious biotechnological research—such as adult stem cell research, genetically tailored chemotherapy, and other medical treatments.

Except for the fact that there are things you can do with cloning that can’t be done with those other types of research. You’d be preventing us from making certain discoveries, not encouraging discoveries in other areas.

We can achieve remarkable biotechnology breakthroughs in this century without surrendering our ethics.

“Our” ethics? I certainly don’t share ethics with you, shitwad.

Outlawing human cloning is the essential progressive act.

And we end with one more act of cloning the left’s language in order to attack it. “Progressive” my boney white ass.

Catholic revenge porn brings out the prudes

Valerie Dodds is officially my favorite person of the day. When her classmates at her Catholic high school learned that she wanted to become a porn star after graduation, they did exactly what you would expect a bunch of uptight Catholic god-humpers to do–slut shaming. So what did she do? Well, once she graduated high school she became a porn star and went back to her old school to shoot a little revenge porn. Boo yah! There are a few pictures of it floating around. This one (NSFW) is my favorite. Porn-posing over a Bible verse that says “all things IN Christ”? Check. Putting her pussy right above the “things” just in case the suggestion was too subtle? Check. Making a gagging gesture to indicate what having sex with Christ would induce? Check, check, check. Pure, unadulterated awesomeness.

But of course, this is the internet age. If a woman does something sexual to protest her peers’ slut-shaming her, we all know what happens next. More people come out of the woodwork to slut shame her. The comments sections of several articles on the topic are riddled with it. For example

sarahelizabeth24 hours ago
What the heck is wrong with her eyebrows in the first picture??The better question is…what the heck is wrong with her MIND to expect people NOT to mock her dream?? ESPECIALLY at a CATHOLIC SCHOOL??I certainly hope that the pictures end up being forcibly removed. This school does not deserve to have its name associated with such trash.

Oh, the Catholic Church deserves much fucking worse than this. How many priests do you think see that picture and immediately think, “If only she were an alter boy”?

Janeben20 hours ago
She’s a disrespectful piece of jailbait.

She’s 19. Do you even fucking know what “jailbait” means?

yesman61 day ago
They’re leaving out the part that about a year earlier she wrongly accused another student of sexual assault because she got caught sneaking out, costing the student and their parents around $20k to prove his innocence. This girl is a disease to society, especially Lincoln.

Big shocker: YESMAN6 provides exactly zero evidence to back up this allegation.

td231 day ago
What does she think she really accomplished? I am sure most of them, aside from the faculty, probably all looked at the photos and felt sorry for how screwed up this kid really is. The only person she embarrassed was herself. I have no problem with what she did from a personal perspective but have to sit here and laugh with her thinking she got the last laugh. Mostly everyone there was probably laughing at what a fool she’s made out of herself.

He has no problem with it. He just thinks any woman who does porn must be screwed up, embarrassing herself, and a fool. Because, as we all know, a woman who does something sexual does it because there’s something wrong with her, not because she’s an adult who can make her own choices and express her sexuality however she wants (so long as it’s consensual).

Bklyn Diamond1 day ago
And this is the result of raising a me me me generation that has no thought outside of the instant gratification of themselves.No sense of caring for others, no sense of respect of others at all.

Ah, another member of the We’re Better Than Everyone Else generation. How the fuck did their parents raise them that they ended up being so self-righteous? And is there any way we could get a time machine and go back and fish-slap each and every one of them until they promise not to raise a generation of sanctimonious twats?

ArmyTx1 day ago
All looks no brains.

Pretty girls are dumb! What an astute observation!

I think this “attractive people are dumb” twaddle stems from the fact that people need to think that people who are better than them in one area must be worse than them in some other. A guy with an expensive car must have a small penis. A girl who is very sexually free must have had a shitty childhood. Etc. Etc. Etc.

mikebythesea1 day ago
People have “dreams” of going into “adult entertainment”? And aren’t the names she was called at least in the ballpark given her ambitions? We’re not talking about one of the nuns being falsely labeled here.

There’s a slut-shaming ballpark? Did this happen when Rush Limbaugh was at ESPN?

Rok1 day ago
Way to prove them wrong… ur, uhm, right. Where are morals, values and sound decision making? Revenge? What is she, 13? Does she truly think the school feels any different about her? Lord in Heaven give this woman direction… besides being used as a depot.

Kinda like how this supposed Lord in Heaven used the Virgin Mary?

RCBQ81 day ago
At least she is getting paid for it now….I’m sure high school was freebies.

She’s a slut! Amiright amiright amiright!

Rok1 day ago
So… if that was your daughter? You’d have no problem? You’d say… ‘Good for you kiddo!! You’re beautiful and I hope you are the best porn star ever!!! I can’t wait until I see one of your movies!!’ SMH… it’s wrong… it promotes infidelity and promiscuity. Porn many times lands in the hands of children who have no business seeing it. It drives many without the ability to control their impulses to sexual depravity. Get it for real, honor your wife and women. Honor yourself and God. Be a man, an adult and have some self-discipline and control.

Some people really don’t have a problem with their kids doing porn, so long as they do it safely and consensually. But a lack of desire to judge others and control other people’s sex lives is just completely fucking incomprehensible to some of the shit-for-brains out there.

lexie161 day ago
Porn also promotes sex trafficking and slavery.

Except for that whole inconvenient part where it does no such thing at all.

RockawayBob1 day ago
She thinks she is shaming her former classmates and school. She is shaming herself and her family but she is too foolish to realize it. What a disgrace!
lexie161 day ago
She’s ruining her future. If she changes her mind about her ambitions she will never be able to get away from this.

This is one of the most infuriating things about bigots. They shame people for being gay or for being “sluts”, and then they say “It’s bad to be gay/a slut because people will shame you for it!”

Yes, people might shame her for doing porn. But not if you people don’t stop being such slut-shaming sexist bigoted pieces of dog shit. Stop creating a problem and then pointing to it as a reason that you should keep creating problems.

AshleighF1 day ago
No stable teenage girl “dreams” of doing porn.Her classmates must have just been calling it like they saw it.
sarahelizabeth24 hours ago
Well, judging by the fact that she dangled naked in front of the motto of a CATHOLIC school, I would say lack of stability is definitely a possibility.

Another classic bigot chestnut: “You don’t think like me, therefore there must be something wrong with you.”

What really irritates me is that these are two women making these sexist remarks. Keep putting yourselves down, girls. It’s just what the men on the right wing want you to do. It’s easier for them to repress you if you do all the work yourselves.

Tio Tony1 day ago
Aspiring (love that word). Gonna get revenge, typical woman.

Men never get revenge. Ever. It’s just those dirty cunts who get revenge. It’s not like there’s an entire genre of action movies about men who get revenge or anything. Nope. Rambo was a lady. A big, muscley, deep-voice, be-facial-haired lady. Yup.

Fucking idiot.

mick73641 day ago
A female teen porn star, got to love the new women of America, thank you liberal America.

I do love the new women of America. They don’t let judgmental donkeyfuckers like you tell them what they can do with their own bodies.

olleb1 day ago
ja ja ja ! She is panning to go do the same in front of the court house, That looks like fun to her, Ohhh My God, this is America’s future!
Some kids want respect with a gun in hand,others prefer to sell drugs, girls prefer to have kids and join the welfare system, But just a few smart ones go for education, Look at this stupid 19 year old, she has the chance to hang a diploma on her wall, but she choose to hang dildoessss!
and this is the start……..!

How many diplomas do you think are on this genius’ wall?

east new york1 day ago
she’s a cutie, so stop.
I told you interracial porn is BIG, and the internet has
made this a hundreds of million dollar industry.
lock ya daughters up, she could be next and
this could be her dream too.

Wait. What? Uh… Is racism just attracted to sexism by some kind of asshole magnetism? Because the issue here has nothing to do with race.

Well, anyways, I’m done here. I think I’m gonna go make fun of that girl and see if she’ll do a show at my place next.

Kidding, of course. 😉

How to be a Christian asshole

Evangelism plays an interesting role in Christianity. Superficially, evangelism is Christians converting non-Christians into Christians. But in reality, evangelism literature is aimed primarily at people who are already Christian. Rather than a tool for bringing in new members, it’s more a tool for reinforcing the beliefs of those who are already members. The odious Ray Comfort’s ludicrously implausible evangelism anecdotes are a sterling example of this, and this one is a doozy.

How to share the gospel with homosexuals

Exclusive: Ray Comfort turns to couple on airplane and says …

Oh, this is gonna be a good one. (Nota bene: I live in an alternate universe where “good” means “offensive and imbecilic.”)

I was flying from Los Angeles to Miami when I found myself sitting next to two women. Sarah was sitting closest to me. She was 29, inappropriately dressed, with a ring through her nose, and she wasn’t the friendliest person I have sat next to on a plane.

Always start out your gospel-sharing by being a judgmental prude. It really makes people want to go to Heaven when they’re confronted with the notion that Heaven means spending eternity with billions of Ray Comforts. Side note: “Not the friendliest person I’ve sat next to on a plane” was voted as “Biggest Understatement in the Universe” by everyone who’s ever sat next to Ray Comfort on a plane.

After we took off I couldn’t help but notice that her friend kept kissing her on the cheek, holding her hand and rubbing her shoulder.

Pervert.

They were “gay,” and that little revelation lifted my planned witnessing encounter up a big notch on the awkward meter.

“Planned witnessing encounters” are pretty fucking high on any awkwardness meter anyways. And, keep in mind, Comfort has been complaining about how unfriendly the lesbians were. Apparently, being lesbian in his presence is unfriendly, since he provides no other evidence that they did anything wrong other than be two people in love with each other.

I really didn’t want an angry homosexual couple complaining to the airline (and the media) that I was a homophobic fundamentalist, imposing my “hate speech” by saying that they were going to hell because they were gay.

Ray Comfort is the victim! Gay people behaved as gay people near him! It was horrible! He couldn’t help but notice it, because he watches lesbians a lot to…witness to them. And there’s nothing hateful about telling a stranger that they’ll burn forever just for living a different lifestyle.

I waited until she had eaten, finished her movie, and simply said, “Sarah. I have a question for you. Do you think there’s an afterlife?”

She wasn’t sure, so I asked, “If heaven exists, are you going there? Are you a good person?”

She predictably said she was, so I took her through three of the Ten Commandments – had she lied, stolen and taken God’s name in vain?

And here we have Comfort’s foundational con. This is how he “witnesses” to EVERYBODY. YouTube is awash with videos of him and his buttfuckingly idiotic followers pulling this exact same schtick on whatever stranger is tolerant enough to appear on camera with them. The argument is utterly unconvincing to anyone who hasn’t already granted the Bible some kind of special moral privilege, and its application is no more relevant to homosexuals than it is to stamp collectors who look like Peter Lorre. It’s just shit he’s shoveling into Christian mouths so they’ll give him more money, because that’s what evangelicals do: They pay already wealthy people to feed them bullshit and work against their own interests.

I didn’t mention her sexual orientation; I didn’t need to, nor did I want to. I simply shared the moral law (the Ten Commandments), because the Bible says that the law was “made” for homosexuals – see 1 Timothy 1:8-10. She wasn’t offended, and I kept her friendship and stayed out of jail.

Number of people who have been jailed in the USA simply for being anti-gay bigoted shit-for-brains: ZERO.  But Ray Comfort needs to portray himself as the brave hero so that Christians will fund his ministry, so he needs to pretend that there was some kind of risk in asking a lesbian if she’s dumb enough to belief the dogshit in the Bible. Without the self-aggrandizement and posturing, his dumbfuck followers wouldn’t donate.

By the way, this concludes his story about witnessing to gays. The rest of the article is about a girl who wanted to have an abortion. So to summarize the story described in the title

  1. Ray Comfort judges a girl’s dress and jewelry on a plane.
  2. Ray Comfort can’t help but watch two lesbians act like a couple who’s in love. Being a couple in love makes them sinners who burn, burn, burn.
  3. Ray Comfort annoys them with Bible verses.
  4. ….
  5. Ray Comfort is a hero who narrowly avoided jail!!!! Give Ray Comfort money!
  6. Ray Comfort says don’t pay attention to the fact that most of Ray Comfort’s stories are primarily about Ray Comfort with other humans serving only as props.

What a fucking repulsive freak of a human being. And he’s just getting started.

What about a woman planning an abortion?

What about her? It’s none of your fucking business.

Trying to witness to someone who is about to take the life of her child is also high on the awkward list.

It’s even higher on the Misogynistic Douchefuck list.

It’s awkward, mainly because the mind of this person is preoccupied with what she is about to do and therefore it’s difficult to get her attention.

Ray Comfort: Understander of Women. If only women would stop thinking so much about their own lives and bodies and pay more attention to Ray Comfort!

However, if she would stop and talk, I would handle the situation similarly to my conversation with Sarah.

No shit. That’s how you handle conversations with all human beings everywhere.

The reason for that is that I don’t want to reform people. I didn’t want Sarah to stop being gay and end up in hell for her lying, theft and blasphemy. I don’t want to just stop a woman from killing her child and have her go to hell for her other sins. With God’s help I want to see more than a change of mind. I want to see a change of heart.

Not surprising, seeing as “The omnipotent ruler of the whole universe deliberately made you imperfect and will send you to burn for eternity simply for being how he made you so you should love him more than anything” isn’t going to have much appeal to anybody’s mind.

Contrary to popular opinion, most who take the life of their child through abortion believe in God.

What fucking “popular opinion” are you referring to?

Even the staunchest fundamentalist atheist believes in God.

Oh, so by “popular opinion” you mean “idiotic horseshit that only the most deranged god-humping cuntburger would believe”…

I know because I have an inside source. I have a “whistleblower”

It better not be the Bible.

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:20-22).

God fucking damn it.

What I said about evangelism being more about appealing to those who already believe has a lot of variation. Some Christians do it more than others. Comfort is notable for how flagrantly his “evangelism” is aimed at no one other than fellow Christians. He doesn’t even try to hide it. He has precisely zero interest in converting non-Christians. His only goal is to bring more Christians into his following so they give him more money. I seriously doubt that he’s even capable of expending energy on any other task, or thinking about any other goal.

Those who abort the life of their children are “idolaters,” illustrated in the fact that their god condones the taking of a human life.

Actually, I’m pretty sure that idolatry is more aptly illustrated by things like this.

They have no fear of God before their eyes. So your agenda, with the help of God, is to stir her God-given conscience to do its duty and put the fear of God within her, and you can do that as I did with Sarah and her homosexuality, without even mentioning the elephant in the room – the impending abortion.

Ladies, if you’re in a room where abortion is an elephant, get out of that room. The people in it are assholes.

Do not use the “God has a wonderful plan” message, because it is both unbiblical and will do more damage than good. If you really believe that that message is biblical, think for a few moments about how the first eleven disciples were murdered for their faith.

So god’s plan sucks and fails his followers. Gotcha.

If you know Church history, you will know that the foundation of the church is founded in the blood of the saints. Jesus warned that people would kill Christians thinking that they are doing God a favor.

And the fact that he did nothing to prevent this, despite his supposed omnipotence, proves that he was an evil cocksucker.

Imagine you have been asked to preach the gospel to 1,000 people on the 100th floor of the World Trade Center the night before 9/11.

No.

You know that within 24 hours every person looking at you will die a death so horrific it defies human imagination.

Fuck you. Are you seriously gonna use fucking 9/11 in your fucking evangelism scam? Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

Many will be burned alive.

Unfortunately, you weren’t among them, you disgusting piece of human filth.

Others will jump 100 stories to their deaths on the unforgiving sidewalks of New York.

You are a wretched, appalling, horrible person. The fact that you would invoke the terrible suffering of 9/11 victims in your pathetic evangelism scam is so fucking low, so fucking depraved, so fucking repellant, that I’m literally shaking with anger. The people who lost their lives that day were better than you could ever hope to be. You, of all people, have no business invoking their names. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

Others will fall with the building and be so crushed that their bodies will never be recovered.

I say this in all seriousness:

GO FUCK YOURSELF. HARD. WITH SOMETHING SHARP. THEN BLEED OUT YOUR ASS AND DIE.

This is a fucking disgusting display. Comfort has transitioned from harassing gay people on airplanes to exploiting the deaths of thousands of Americans at the hands of fundamentalists who happen to be from a different bullshit religion. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

What are you going to tell them – that God has a wonderful plan for their lives? You can’t say that to people who are about to die!

I’m just glad that the people who suffered and died in 9/11 didn’t have to hear your bullshit as a final insult to their legacy. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

Instead you would soberly tell them that it’s appointed to man once to die and after this, the judgment. You would tell them that God is holy, that He will judge them by His perfect law, that hell is very real and that they desperately need a Savior. You would tell them that they could die within 24 hours, and plead with them to repent and trust alone in Jesus.

The only thing more repulsive and immoral than Ray Comfort is the imaginary being Ray Comfort pretends to worship. And the only thing more pathetic than his op-ed is the simple-minded dope who donates to his ministry after reading this horrendous goatshit.

If you have to change the message you normally preach, then you are not preaching the biblical gospel. Why would you have a different message for people who are walking the streets of this world and are about to die? Every day 150,000 people throughout this world pass into death, many of whom will die in terrible ways – through horrific car accidents and through the suffering of cancer.

Fuck your useless, heartless god harder than you fuck yourself.

The instant someone is converted to Jesus Christ, they know that means no more lying, stealing, lust, pornography, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, idolatry and no murdering of your own children.

Comfort is using the word “know” to mean “keep doing it, but judge others for it.”

Such faithful talk will cause the sinner to tremble as Felix trembled when Paul reasoned with him – not about some wonderful plan, but of “sin, temperance and judgment.”

No, it will cause any sane person to despise you.

The stirring of the dormant conscience coupled with a knowledge that a holy God will hold her accountable should be enough to put the fear of God within someone who is about to commit the murder of her own offspring. May God help us to be faithful, courageous and give us wisdom and help us to stop such slaughter.

Going around telling strangers that they will burn forever because the being who created them the way they are will burn them forever unless they believe what Ray Comfort says without evidence is not a wise move. Such admonitions only work on the stupid, the vulnerable, the confused, the disingenuous, and the malicious. It is not in any way how two humans converse rationally with each other. Comfort’s approach amounts to only one of two things: A deliberate attempt to exploit vulnerable and confused people, or a callous and cynical attempt to keep Christians who might be straying within the fold.

It’s hard for me to express just how disgusting Ray Comfort is to me. He’s a predator whose weapons are stupidity and ignorance. He preys on Christians who are too fucking ignorant and/or stupid to know how a fucking rational argument works or how people other than themselves think. There really are people out there who think he’s telling the truth with his bullshit conversion stories, and they give him money to perpetuate his obvious fucking scam of a ministry. It’s pathetic, it’s disgusting, it’s disheartening, it’s just plain sad.

Ray Comfort has turned being a stupid Christian asshole into a profession. Woe is America.

When someone says “abortion pills”, you know they’re an idiot

That intellectual stalwart known as the Daily Oklahoman saw fit to publish the following cartoon as if it had an actual point to make.

It's sad but true: Fifteen year old girls are often smarter than their parents.

It’s sad but true: Fifteen year old girls are often smarter than their parents.

Where to begin with this bullshit? Well, let’s start with the most idiotic aspect and work back from there.

An R-rated movie about fucking “abortion pills”? That sounds like it’ll sell a lot of fucking movie tickets. Maybe Optimus Prime will transform into an abortion pill in the next Transformers movie. I mean, why the fuck not? It’s not like that would do any more damage to the franchise than Michael Bay has done already.

How many fucking movies about “abortion pills” are there, anyways? And why the fuck do the right wingers suddenly think there are a bunch of abortion pill movies out there? Do they even watch movies? The whole concept of this cartoon hinges on the idea that there’s something hypocritical about letting children have this thing vs. letting them watch a movie about this thing. But there are hardly any god damn movies about the thing in question, so it’s a stupid fucking comparison. Having “abortion pills” vs. watching movies about “abortion pills” is not a real issue in the real world.

Here’s a more apt comparison. Sometimes, idiotic and irresponsible parents buy guns for their five year old children, who then go on to kill their siblings. There’s a fuck ton of R-Rated movies about guns, and apparently god-humping right wing dingleberries are comfortable with giving kids as young as 5 a gun, but would never let these heavily armed children watch an R-rated movie.* Where’s the fucking Daily Oklahoman cartoon about that? That’s a real life example of “You can have it, but you can’t watch a movie about it,” and it’s a hell of a lot younger than 15, too.

Setting that stupidity aside, there’s no such thing as an “abortion pill”. The term was invented by woman-hating busybodies on the right for a pill that a woman can take shortly after sex to prevent pregnancy. All it does is prevent a zygote–which, I remind you, is a SINGLE CELL–from implanting in the uterus, so a pregnancy doesn’t occur. In the god-humper’s mind, this single cell is more important than the well-being of the actual living, breathing human woman who carries it. Think about that. They think parents should be able to force her to have a child at only 15–which will negatively affect the remainder of her life–rather than let her take a pill that prevents a single cell from implanting in her body. That’s how fucking sick these people are. Single cells are more important than the lives of 15 year old girls.

Setting that stupidity aside, a 15 year old girl DOESN’T need her parents’ permission to see an R-rated movie. She just needs to be accompanied by someone over 17, who doesn’t have to be a parent. That’s it. And even that rule is only loosely enforced by the theaters. Anyone who thinks that the MPAA’s system actually makes it so that parents get to determine what R-rated movies their teenagers see is a fucking naive twat. And why the fuck would you want to be so controlling of your teenager’s life, anyways? Let them see some fucking movies. Yes, your 15 year old daughter is watching R-rated movies without your permission. Deal with it, you puerile prude.

Setting that stupidity aside, the government has no say whatsoever in how old you have to be to see a movie. There’s this thing called the First Amendment you might want to look into. The government can regulate how old you need to be to take a drug, but not watch a movie. They’re two completely unrelated issues.

Setting that stupidity aside… “Abortemall”? Seriously? You think the people who make the morning after pill just want to abort all the pregnancies there are? Then why aren’t they grabbing women who have recently had sex and forcing the pills down their throats?  The pill is entirely voluntary. But that’s what you guys really hate about it, isn’t it? Women (and teenage girls) can go and buy these pills of their own free will, thereby making their own decisions about whether they get pregnant or not. In the theocrats’ minds, women and girls making their own choices about their bodies is the same as aborting all pregnancies.

Setting that stupidity aside… Oh, god damn it, I’m tired of this. This cartoon is an onion of stupidity–each layer of imbecility pulls back to reach yet another stinky, tear-inducing layer of retarded bullshit. I’m done.

I could go on. There’s the whole thing about portraying a 15 year old wearing a 9 year old’s pig tail hair style, or the egregious skull and crossbones on the box, or the box office that looks like it’s from 1946, or the fact that the cartoonist felt the need to put “abortion pills” in red ink just in case he was being too subtle… But if I went through everything about this cartoon that’s ball-crunchingly stupid, I’d be at it all day. Suffice it to say that the Daily Oklahoman ain’t doing itself any favors by publishing the work of this ignorant, untalented hack (whoever he is). But then, when has the Daily Oklahoman ever done anybody any favors?**

___________________________

*It should be noted that I have no objection to portraying guns in movies, and honestly don’t care if a 15 year old watches a violent R-rated movie or not. But I have to wonder why any moron who agrees with this cartoon thinks it’s okay to put a gun in a kid’s hand if you won’t let them watch a movie about guns.

** The answer is, “When they’re wealthy and need their questionable business practices promoted without any skepticism whatsoever.”