Criticism ≠ Bigotry

CNN continues its track record of reporting No Shit Sherlock stories in which they give a large, national platform to some right wing bigot to spout the same crap they always say as if it were something revolutionary. This time it’s a bunch of evangelicals whining about how they’re the new persecuted minority because their bigotry leads to people calling them bigots, which is JUST LIKE what has been done to minorities.

When Peter Sprigg speaks publicly about his opposition to homosexuality, something odd often happens.

During his speeches, people raise their hands to challenge his assertions that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but no Christians speak out to defend him.

“But after it is over, they will come over to talk to me and whisper in my ear, ‘I agree with everything you said,’” says Sprigg, a spokesman for The Family Research Council, a powerful, conservative Christian lobbying group.

We’ve heard of the “down-low” gay person who keeps his or her sexual identity secret for fear of public scorn. But Sprigg and other evangelicals say changing attitudes toward homosexuality have created a new victim: closeted Christians who believe the Bible condemns homosexuality but will not say so publicly for fear of being labeled a hateful bigot.

Waaaaaah! We can’t spout bigotry without being called bigots! We’re the real victims here!

Bryan Litfin, a theology professor at Moody Bible Institute in Illinois, says Christians should be able to publicly say that God designed sex to take place within a marriage between a man and a woman.

“That isn’t so outrageous,” Litfin says. “Nobody is expressing hate toward homosexuals by saying that. Since when is disagreement the same as hate?”

Since when is disagreement the same as denying people marriage rights, allowing businesses to fire people for being gay, opposing anti-gay bullying laws for schools, and other forms of oppression which are clearly not merely disagreement?

But quoting the Bible doesn’t inoculate anyone from becoming a bigot or hater, some scholars say. There’s a point at which a Christian’s opposition to homosexuality can become bigotry, and even hate speech, they say.

Crossing such a line has happened many times in history.

A literal reading of the Bible was used to justify all sorts of hatred: slavery, the subjugation of women and anti-Semitism, scholars and pastors say.

“Truly damaging speech cannot be excused just because it expresses genuine religious belief,” says Mark D. Jordan, author of “Recruiting Young Love: How Christians Talk about Homosexuality.”

“Some religious beliefs, sincerely held, are detestable. They cannot be spoken without disrupting social peace,” says Jordan, a professor at the John Danforth Center on Religion & Politics at Washington University in St. Louis.

First sensible thing anyone in this article has said so far. Now, let’s get back to the stupid.

A blogger at The American Dream asked in one essay:

“Are evangelical Christians rapidly becoming one of the most hated minorities in America?”

The reluctance of evangelicals to speak out against homosexuality is often cited as proof they are being forced into the closet.

Or maybe it’s proof that some of them are starting to realize how idiotic it is to attack someone for something that has no effect on them or anyone else.  Maybe some part of their tiny, reptilian brain stems somehow managed to avoid getting completely fried by religious dogma and whispers to them, “You sound really, really stupid and mean-spirited when you attack gays. Maybe you shouldn’t do it…”

Joe Carter, editor for The Gospel Coalition, an online evangelical magazine, wrote a blog post entitled “Debatable: Is the Christian Church a ‘Hate Group’?” He warned that young people will abandon “orthodox” Christian churches that teach that homosexuality is a sin for fear of being called haters.

“Faux civility, embarrassment, prudishness and a fear of expressing an unpopular opinion has caused many Christians to refrain from explaining how homosexual conduct destroys lives,” Carter wrote.

Or again, maybe they’re not able to repress the cognitive dissonance that arises in the brain of any non-insane person who hears a phrase like, “homosexual conduct destroys lives.” I’ve met quite a few gay people in my life. They all seemed to be doing just fine. In fact, the only recurring problem was that if they openly said they were gay, they faced a flood of anti-gay Christian “love” which sought to deny them rights that everyone else enjoys.

And, seriously, you’re accusing the non-Christians of prudishness? That’s fucking rich.

Some Christians fear that opposing homosexuality could cause them to lose their jobs and “haunt them forever,” Carter says.

You’d think that would make them a little more empathetic to the many gay people who have lost their jobs for being gay. But then again, you’d think.  They don’t. That’s why they’re evangelicals.

Edward Johnson, a communication professor at Campbell University in North Carolina, says we are now living in a “postmodern” era where everything is relative and there is no universally accepted truth. It’s an environment in which anyone who says “this is right” and “that is wrong” is labeled intolerant, he says.

There was a time when a person could publicly say homosexuality was wrong and people could consider the statement without anger, he says. Today, people have reverted to an intellectual tribalism where they are only willing to consider the perspective of their own tribe.

Whereas god-humpers are well known for their open-mindedness and willingness to consider other people’s viewpoints.

“They are incapable of comprehending that someone may have a view different than theirs,” Johnson says. “For them anyone who dares to question the dogma of the tribe can only be doing so out of hatred.”

Oh, yes. When we say, “Treat gay people like humans and stop being such a busybody,” that’s intellectual tribalism and dogma because we can’t understand anyone else’s point of view but our own. Now, let’s have a conversation about that whole “Even people who don’t agree with us must follow our Holy Book” horseshit that you guys keep spouting.

Ed Johnson is spouting some weapons grade level of lack of self awareness here. He clearly has no comprehension of what the actual pro gay rights side has to say. And he clearly gives no truck to any point of view that doesn’t line up with his own dogmatic and ignorant reading of the Bible. And he’s projecting his own dogmatic bigotry and inability to comprehend those who are different (gays) onto the very people he dogmatically condemns without comprehending.

Slaveholders in 19th century America justified slavery through a literal reading of the Bible, quoting Titus 2:9-10 – “Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything. …” And anti-Semitism was justified by the claims that Jews killed Jesus, such as Matthew 27: 25-26 – “Let his blood be on us and on our children.”

Litfin, from Moody Bible Institute, acknowledged that the Bible once sanctioned slavery, but he said that practice was a “cultural expression” that changed over time. Evangelicals who oppose same-sex marriage by citing the Bible are on more solid ground, he says.

“Marriage is a universal and timeless institution that God set up for maximum human flourishing. He set it up in the first book of the Bible with the story of Adam and Eve. It is consistent throughout the whole Bible. … Marriage is in a different category than those cultural things.”

19th century slaveholders made the exact same argument about slavery, you fucking goon. And no, marriage is not consistent throughout the Bible. The Bible in some parts is perfectly fine with forcing a child into marriage or a man taking multiple wives which he treats like property. There is nothing universal or timeless about the account of marriage in the Bible.

Public jousts over the Bible’s stance on homosexuality rarely change people’s minds.

I guess it depends on what they’re jousting with…

Until the debate over homosexuality is settled – if it ever is – there may be plenty of evangelical Christians who feel as if they are now being forced to stay in the closet.

Carter, the evangelical blogger, says he foresees a day when any church that preaches against homosexuality will be marginalized. Just as many churches now accept divorce, they will accept sexual practices once considered sinful.

“It’s getting to the point,” he says, “where churches are not going to say that any sexual activity is wrong.”

No. There will come a point when they don’t say that homosexuality is wrong (and that point can’t come soon enough). But there’s nothing stopping them from saying rape or pedophilia is wrong.

The fact that evangelicals constantly confound consensual homosexuality with non-consensual forms of sex is revealing of their authoritarian mindset. The notion of an individual consenting means little to them. Sex is good or bad depending on whether or not the authorities tell you it’s good or bad. Whether you consent or not is irrelevant. That’s why you hear some evangelicals attacking consenting gays but defending the brazen rapists in Steubenville. It’s not about consent or personal freedom to them. It’s not about your personal identity or your right to a private life. It’s about God Says So, which always translates to We Say So. It’s about control and power over others for evangelicals. And that’s why they need to be opposed at every turn.

Advertisements

Rape-ublican Reloaded

I have a bit of advice for the few (if any) people out there who read this. Do not, under any circumstances, underestimate the Rape-ublican Party because you thought, “Well, they would never stoop THAT low!”  Case in point:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — The Arkansas Senate has moved to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood for HIV/AIDS education efforts at local schools.

We are seriously at the point where wanting to educate children about the dangers of fucking AIDS makes you an enemy in the Republicans’ eyes. If I understand their current position correctly, they want your children in public schools to be creationist god-humpers that have both guns and AIDS. And it’s that special strain of AIDS that increases your carbon footprint and causes you to think that Ted Nugent has actual opinions that are worth listening to.

The sponsor says he doesn’t want state money going to an organization that makes abortion referrals.

Now we have the villain of our story. The Sponsor sounds like a total assface. Given the choice between “Defund group that gives women control over their own bodies,” and “Educate children about a deadly disease,” he chose the former. Fuck you, Sponsor!

Planned Parenthood supporters lined up outside the senate doors and filled the balcony to watch the debate.

They were as helpless in this debate as Rape-ublicans want women in general to be.

The sponsor says he simply doesn’t want state money to go to Planned Parenthood for sex education because of the group’s ties to abortion, even if the education money isn’t used for abortions.

Who is this nefarious ne’er-do-well who calls himself The Sponsor?

“It says all funds are strictly accounted for and no public funds are used to pay for abortions with rare exceptions,” Jason Rapert said.

JASON FUCKING RAPERT.

Just when you thought he was focused on instituting mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds (i.e. State Sponsored Sexual Assault of Women), he pulls the old switcheroo and unexpectedly adopts the Pro-AIDS position.

Arkansas State Legislator Jason Rapert announces that he has switched from being the pro-Rape candidate to the pro-AIDS candidate (visual approximation)

Arkansas State Legislator Jason Rapert announces that he has switched from being the pro-Rape candidate to the pro-AIDS candidate (visual approximation)

There really is no policy position too stupid or too evil for a true supervillain like Rapey Magoo here. In fact, I’m pretty sure that if the Green Goblin were actually real, he’d say something along the lines of, “Dude, Rapert, I’m evil and all, but damn. You don’t think this is taking things a little too far?”

“It’s very interesting they put in their own flier that none of those funds are used for abortions with rare exceptions. Fact of the matter is, they shouldn’t be done at all.”

It’s very interesting that you’re so obsessed with controlling women’s decisions over their own bodies that you’d be willing to sacrifice the well-being of children in order to accomplish it.

Arkansas needs a superhero.  Somebody needs to stand the fuck up to this motherfucker, or it won’t be long before he’s inviting alien invasions and building an army of mutated cyber-clones to take over every womb in the country–and then!–The World! I’m currently 800 miles away, so there ain’t much I can do, but I’d volunteer if I could.

Besides, I think it would be more impactful if Arkansas’ superhero were a woman. Women are the obvious target of their dastardly supervillain, after all. It would be quite fitting if he were defeated by one of the very vagina-possessing Arkansas citizens that he apparently despises so much. We could call her the Vaginal Avenger. I see it going down something like this…

Worried on-looker 1: Oh shit! That abortion clinic is under attack by the Frenzied Fundamentalists!

Worried on-looker 2: Fuck my biscuits! The villainous Jason Rapert the AIDS-lover looks poised for another victory over the forces of good. Whatever shall we do?

Worried on-looker 3:  Look! Up in the sky! What the fuck is that???

[The Vaginal Avenger lands on the scene with a mighty roar. Cue music: “The Vaginal Avenger, super fucking feminist!”]

Vaginal Avenger: Halt, evil-doer! Get your grimy Rape-ublican hands off of women’s vaginas!

Rapert: Hah! You’re too late, Vaginal Avenger! For victory is mine! My army of Frenzied Fundamentalist mouth-breathers shall tear you to shreds!

Vaginal Avenger: Not so fast, Rapert. For how could you possibly counteract my secret weapon–a SCIENCE BOOK!

Frenzied Fundamentalist 1: Aaaaagh! The Enlightenment! It burns!

Frenzied Fundamentalist 2: I didn’t know there’d be a quiz! I’m outta here!

Frenzied Fundamentalist 3: Fuck a fetus! I can’t withstand the power of basic knowledge of the human body!

[As the Frenzied Fundamentalists flee, the crowd cheers.]

Cheering on-looker 1: Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that being a decent human being has won the day!

Rapert [fleeing]: I’ll be back, Vaginal Avenger! You just wait til the next election cycle!

Sadly, I don’t see anything like this happening in real life. But I can dream…

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.

Idahopeless: More Marriage Police

So a while back the marriage police in Oklahoma were shifting their focus to attacking straight people’s marriages, since there was nothing left for them to fuck the gays over with. But the Okie godbots aren’t alone. Now the mashed potatoes between the ears of several Idaho marriage police have developed this bright idea:

BOISE, Idaho (KBOI) – A number of Idaho lawmakers are targeting a topic they say should be taboo on television – premarital sex.

Yes, we must ban premarital sex on TV. Because not depicting it means it’ll stop existing, obviously. As we all know, back in the 50s when you couldn’t even use the word “toilet” on TV,  people didn’t shit.  Instead they excreted digested food as golden Prayer Nuggets that floated immediately up to heaven to redound to the glory of god.

And they’re taking a symbolic stand.

“Symbolic stand” is politicalese for “time-wasting pandering”. Of course they have no hope of actually banning premarital sex on TV, but Idaho has no shortage of sanctimonious fuck-buckets who clinch their shit-speckled assholes any time someone fucks on TV. These cum stains, unfortunately, are often registered to vote and love to be reassured that getting upset about stuff like this is what actual humans do.

Idahoans are also thumbless (they broke ’em off in their asses), and therefore incapable of changing channels. I’m sure they’d appreciate this cynical gesture to the crippling busybody voyeurism that causes them to continue to watch a show that offends them so much.

Lawmakers are against references to premarital sex in dramas, comedies, reality and talk shows as well as advertisements.

The time machine the lawmakers used to travel here from 1955 is yet to be found. Scientists are still baffled at how they could operate any such vehicle without thumbs or cerebral cortices.

“We need to take a stand and stand up for for the morality of what is best for the citizens of Idaho,” said Rep. Darrell Bolz, (R-Caldwell).

I hereby declare that if you cup a boob to which you are not lawfully betrothed, then I shall bravely and mightily relegate you to late night cable! For I am so strong and so brave and so powerful that I cannot abide by even the existence of a TV show that in any way makes me even slightly uncomfortable! Also, you liberals are such pussies! Raarrrr!

The measure that easily passed the house state affairs committee would urge the federal government and the FCC to prohibit the portrayal, even implied, or even the discussion of premarital sex on TV between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Ah, the FCC. The government’s big FUCK YOU to the first amendment.

It’s important to note that they want even discussing sex outside of marriage to be banned. This is a classic right wing approach to governing: If something doesn’t fit your worldview, then force the entire world to stick their fingers in their ears and go “LALALALALALA”, and the problem vanishes.

But this isn’t mere solipsism or Berkeleyan idealism. The best way to control the cultural dialogue is simply to prevent it from happening altogether. No one can point out how pig-fuckingly stupid your ideas are if the topic can’t even be brought up for discussion.

The measure that’s moving forward is not a bill. Under the rules of the Idaho Legislature, it’s called a Joint Memorial and is simply a symbolic statement.

The statement symbolizes the hundreds of thousands of votes that the people of Idaho flushed down the [censored] by electing these [censored] dribbling [censored] [censored] who waste tax payers’ money on [censored] [censored] [censored] with a goat’s [censored] [censored] and a Roomba.

People KBOI News talked with call the effort a waste of time.

“I think its infringement on freedom of speech, don’t want the government telling me what I can or cannot watch,” Viola Hauck of Boise said.

Uhhh… “Waste of time” is not the same as “violation of the basic freedoms we Americans purportedly hold so dear that our country is said to be founded on them.” Is that previous sentence really supposed to lead into the one that follows? Because I don’t see it.

Supporters say the Idaho Constitution requires government to protect the virtue and purity of the home.

Supporters also would rather you didn’t know what they like to do with a potato and a tube of KY in their oh so pure and virtuous homes.

What else does this dingleberry Darrell Bolz have to say for himself?

HJM 2, sponsored by Rep. Darrell Bolz, R-Caldwell and six GOP cosponsors, cites the Idaho Constitution’s statement that “the first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people, and the purity of the home,” and says, “Inappropriate and indecent material is being broadcast more frequently.” The measure also notes that the FCC is charged preventing the broadcast of indecent programming between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., “when children might be watching,” and calls on the federal agency to “resume enforcement of traditional American standards of decency.”

Think of the children! We have no choice but to force our morals on others, because of THE CHILDREN!

Well, those were some rotten potatoes. For dessert, let’s see what those Freedom Loving Patriots who comment over at WingNutDaily have to say about this:

Snooper2 days ago

They need to ban Pornagraphy [sic] and the sex industry in this country once and for all! i’m [sic] tired of watching it. and Yes Bring [sic] back 7th Heaven!

William Wilson3 days ago

Abuot [sic] time! But it’s only a start. Also ban: prostatution, [sic] drugs, murder, and homos.

And bring back 7st Heaven. [sic]

The_Northwesterner William Wilson2 days ago

Ban Islam, Communism and feminism as well and we’ll really be ahead of the game.

wearyconservative1946 The_Northwesterner2 days ago

And illegal mexicans. [sic]

If these guys are the kind of geniuses we get from people watching Seventh Heaven, then I would suck the FSM’s dick with gratitude for the fact that it was cancelled.

But I still wouldn’t have Seventh Heaven banned, even if it turned people into the drooling, retarded illiterates that populate the WND commenting boards. I actually kinda like the First Amendment, in case you haven’t gathered.

The Titanic Gets a New Captain

A group of aging, superstitious partriarchs guilty of covering thousands of child rapes all over the world just elected a new leader. Why is this news? Because people don’t pay attention. Case in point, the new guy’s agenda…

A Vatican spokesman says Francis will be a reformer, and will call the church “back to basics.”

It would be nice if “basics” included not molesting kids and treating gays and women fairly. But somehow I suspect it’s more along the lines of “keep the bitches in their place and make sure the fags are miserable.” It would be nice if world leaders noticed the same things that I do about the Church, but such is not the case.

Meanwhile, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has congratulated Pope Francis a native Argentine and expressed hope that he will work toward justice, equality and peace for all.

How plausible is this hope? Wait for it…

As we noted earlier, the new pope has clashed with the Argentine government over his opposition to gay marriage and free distribution of contraceptives.

Shock! Horror! He’s just like everyone else in the Catholic leadership. I can’t believe that the Pope is a crusty old bigot who’s just gonna fuck up other people’s lives. It’s only been that way with every other Pope ever in the history of Popery!

When is the rest of the world going to realize that the Catholic Church isn’t going to change, and  stop treating them like they have even a modicum of legitimate authority? The Catholic Church should be treated like the fossilized remains of human civilization that they are. They should be ignored, except when they do something evil like rape a kid, in which case they should be hunted down like dogs and put on trial and imprisoned like any normal criminal. And the election of a new Pope shouldn’t be any more newsworthy than the KKK electing a new Exalted Cyclops.*

_______________________________________

*Yes, that’s a real rank in the KKK. And yes, it sounds more like something a douchebag classicist would name his penis.

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.

Naked Naughty “Nuns” get sued

This is the kind of headline that grabs one’s attention:

Catholic group to sue naked feminist protesters

I saw that Neil Gaimon had tweeted it from Joe. My. God. and had to check it out. So, what’s going on here?

Catholic group Civitas is suing the group Femen for “sexual exhibitionism” in front of children, as well as protesting illegally and insulting a religious group by mocking their appearance.

So what is this “sexual exhibitionism” that so scarred these poor children?  Well, the protesting women’s boobs were, like, visible and stuff. (Image NSFW) They weren’t even properly naked, just topless. I generally demand more from my sexual exhibitionism. They could at least have made out or something. Maybe a little fisting. Just a little.

This is in France, by the way. This Catholic group is suing for showing boobage in France. Seriously, who doesn’t show their boobs in France? I’ve seen a French film or two. I seriously thought boobs were so common in France that people barely noticed them. “Hey, Jacques. You ever notice how hard it is to see the futbol game with all these boobs in the way?” “What boobs?”

And “insulting a religious group by mocking their appearance”? Is that really illegal in France? Insulting people should never be illegal. Religious people need to learn that the law is not your bah-bah that you can suck on whenever you get your feelings hurt and feel all poopy inside. And let’s keep in mind–these naked feminist nuns were counter-protesting a Catholic run anti-gay march. So it’s okay for the Catholics to march to deny gays equal rights, but it’s not okay to make fun of the Catholics’ silly costumes. Christian privilege, much? Oh, and fuck boobies. Children might see them. And we all know how scarring that would be if a boob were visible and a child saw it. It might do horrible things to him, like make him giggle for a few seconds. Oh, the humanity.

So who is this lesbian feminist group? From what I can gather at Le Monde (my French is rusty), they’re a rather outlandish women’s rights group that has drawn quite a bit of controversy for their over the top protests which they always do topless. This has led to the legitimate question of whether they are actually conveying a message or if people just see the breasts and forget everything else. European feminists worry that if Femen becomes the face (or chest) of feminism it could distract people from the message, and maybe that’s true. Honestly, in my opinion, while I’m all for feminism and gay rights and lots of other left wing issues, I’ve never participated in a protest of any kind and probably never will. It’s just too herd-mentality for me. But I support other people’s right to do it, even in the nude. So long as they don’t get violent…but we’ll get to that in a moment.

The feminist protesters turned up to the march against the proposed marriage for all law wearing only knickers and stockings, and with graffiti criticising the march written on their bodies.

I’m not sure if I’m comfortable calling gay marriage “marriage for all”. That seems to play right into the dumb ass slippery slope arguments that the right loves to use, where gay marriage will lead to people marrying box turtles and lawn sprinklers. Although maybe this is a translation problem.

Well, anyways, they’re criticizing an anti-gay march. Good for them!

They also fired canisters of tear gas at the marchers.

NOT good for them.  What the hell, girls? Spraying tear gas? That is way out of line.

That is, it’s way out of line if it’s true. I see some reason for doubt. Here’s a YouTube video of the event (NSFW, obviously, because of boobs. People, for some odd reason that I’ll never understand, hate seeing boobs.)

You can definitely see them spraying….something. But is it tear gas, or any kind of dangerous gas? Everyone exposed to it seems to be fine. I don’t see anyone rubbing their eyes or reacting to it in any way. I was at a hockey game a while back when a drunk guy six or seven rows back from me got maced by security. Even though I was several yards away, it irritated my eyes quite a bit. And that was just one guy getting sprayed with a small amount of mace.  In the video, the…whatever it is they spray seems to go everywhere, but people seem to be doing just fine.

One thing that is clear from the video is that they are attacked by the anti-gay protestors.

Some members of the feminist group were attacked and injured by the marchers.

Yeah, I just said that. Try to keep up, article I’m commenting on!

Five people have since been arrested in connection to the violence.

Who were these five people? Were they from Femen or Civitas? What did the police have to say about the allegations of tear gas or that the anti-gay protestors attacked the feminists?

Jesus titty balls, the French media is even worse than American media when it comes to leaving out relevant information. It’s hard to form a well-reasoned opinion on this with such sparse reporting. Who attacked whom first? That’s really important info.

Alain Escada, the president of Civitas, said the catholic group would also be suing Femen for spreading a message in a violent manner, organised violence with arms and threatening the freedom to protest of others.

If they actually did any of those things, you should sue. Why was this story all about the suing for boobs and dressing up in “insulting” costumes if there was the possibility of violence in this protest? Why did this shit come up at the end of the article? It’s definitely the more important stuff. But it’s also the stuff where the information becomes so sparse that the article is mostly useless. Also, I can’t help but notice that the journalist who authored this article has apparently spoken only to members of Civitas, but not Femen. Why weren’t the women asked for a statement on this? Are we following some arcane Catholic rule that only lets the men speak? What the hell?

Of course, I tend towards the naked feminist nuns’ side, since 1.) I agree with gay rights and feminism and 2.) I like boobs. However, if they did really spray tear gas into a crowd, then that’s simply inexcusable behavior and they should be in jail. On the other hand, maybe that was just some kind of harmless smoke bomb they set off, and the Civitas bigots attacked them unprovoked, in which case it’s the bigots who should be in jail. Or maybe it really was tear gas or mace, but they only sprayed it in self defense after someone attacked them. It would be nice if the article provided enough information to resolve this issue, but the stuff I quoted is all we get.

It would also be nice if the article focused on the violence rather than the boobs. As I said, I like me some boobs, but anti-free-speech violence is a much more pressing issue. (I also like pressing boobs.) It makes me think that perhaps the critics of Femen’s method might have a point. Except for the fact that if this story hadn’t involved boobs, the odiousness of Civitas’ protest against gay marriage would not have spread across the world. It’s doubtful that this story would have gotten any attention outside of France if not for the boob angle. So, yay for boobs! I guess.