I’m not laughing with you…

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

Ten Commandments critics’ claims laughable

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

2 Kings 18:27

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

Serious shit, people.

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

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

Exodus 20:17

King James Version (KJV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

More Oklahomans make fools of themselves

I already looked at one idiotic argument against gay marriage from my home state of Oklahoma. That particular bit of stupidity was from just some random schmuck in Edmond. Today’s bit of drooling inanity, however, comes from people with actual power. Three state legislators, to be precise.

Young Oklahoma Republican lawmakers: Sanctity of marriage must endure

BY STATE REPS. ELISE HALL, JUSTIN WOOD AND JOSH COCKROFT

Note to bigots: If you want people to represent your position on gay marriage, you should not get guys called “Wood” and “Cockroft” to do it. You’re basically just inviting assholes like me to make fun of you.

As the three youngest members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives Republican caucus, we continue to believe that the push for a new definition of marriage is an attempt to carve out a special right that has no basis in the traditions of our country.

Since when do rights need to have a basis in tradition? Did women’s right to vote have any basis in tradition? Did equal rights for blacks have any basis in tradition?

We believe that all Americans deserve to be treated with dignity…

Okay. I’m not playing bullshit bigot boilerplate any more. Just move on to the obvious contradiction of this statement that you will inevitably make…

but that equal treatment has no bearing on the question of how marriage is defined.

So we can just throw out Loving v. Virginia and start banning interracial marriage again. Because the definition of marriage has nothing to do with equality. Nothing at all.

You see this thing I’m doing here? It’s a rare (on the right wing) form of thinking called “following a sentence through to its logical implications.” You might want to try it some time. Because I don’t think equality having nothing to do with marriage is anything you would ever actually want to stand by.

Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. It’s not defined as a union between a man and another man nor a woman and another woman.

Don’t you just love how right wingers suddenly turn into strident lexicographers whenever the prospect of people they don’t even know having a relationship they don’t approve of comes up? We can’t redefine marriage! Think of the damage it will do to our dictionaries!

Doing so would represent creating a new right, not adhering to any previously understood right.

Bullshit. Giving women the right to vote didn’t “create a new right”. It took an existing right and extended it to a new group of people. That’s how this whole “equal rights” thing works.

Is gay marriage gaining traction with young people? Yes. But that is because of the moralistic relativity that is constantly being promoted by Hollywood and in many areas of pop culture today. The idea that is too frequently becoming the norm is that everything is allowed and nothing is off limits.

It’s pop culture’s fault! If we censored movies and made it harder to have this conversation, then we could be bigots all we want without ever having to worry about public exposure!

Whenever there’s some kind of moral panic, people often target some aspect of pop culture as the supposed cause of all our problems.  In the 20s it was jazz music and dancing. In the 30s it was movies.  In the 50s it was comic books. In the 60s it was rock music. In the 70s, heavy metal. Pornography, video games, horror films, gangster rap music, reality TV–all have found themselves in the cross hairs of sanctimonious culture warriors who want an easy target to solve all their problems. The reason is simple: pop culture is an easy target. It’s highly visible, and there’s always someone out there who finds some aspect of it offensive (usually because it depicts something unfamiliar to them). And, as any rational person might suspect, there is little evidence that pop culture actually has the power over people’s minds that the culture warriors say it does. Pop culture reflects us much more than we reflect it.

But culture warriors rarely care about facts. They care about airy principles and vaguely defined “values”. The myth of American “moral relativism” is a perfect example of this. Whenever right wing douche-nozzles like these guys talk of “moral relativism”, replace the term with “moral system different from my own” and you get their real point. I doubt there are very many Americans who believe “everything is allowed and nothing is off limits.” If there were, the murder and rape rates would be MUCH higher than they actually are because of all the people who just kill and take whatever they want. But the vast majority of Americans do in fact realize that these things are wrong, and don’t do them. They’re not moral relativists–they just have a moral system that differs from the Evangelical system, which is good, since the Evangelical system is based on bigotry, ignorance, superstition, venality, hatred, and pervasive stupidity.

God intended one man and one woman to be tied in holy matrimony for their entire lives.

No. God intended for Evangelicals to shut the fuck up and leave gay people alone.

I have just as much evidence to support my hypothesis as you do yours.

Proponents of gay marriage will point fingers at straight couples getting divorces, but that’s not the fault of traditional marriage — that’s an issue for each individual couple to deal with and answer to God. Humans are flawed individuals and fall short of the grace and glory of God. That, unfortunately, includes marriages that end. It is a straw-man argument.

It’s still better than “God says so.” Unless you’ve got a good solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma, your divine command ethics is up shit creek without a god-paddle.

And, no, it’s not a straw man. Bigoted douchenuggets repeatedly argue that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed because children need both a mother and a father. Pointed out that divorce results in children being raised without one or the other–but we still don’t outlaw straight marriage–is entirely relevant.

Gay marriage proponents argue that long-term gay couples deserve the right to marry so they can maneuver certain legal matters dealing with things ranging from wills to being put on life insurance policies. There are alternate ways to address legal issues. A widespread acceptance of nontraditional marriage is not the way to go.

Not there aren’t other ways. Oklahoma has a frickin’ constitutional amendment which specifies that there not be any. Not only is gay marriage outlawed, but so are domestic partnerships and civil unions. There is no legal recourse, and assholes like your are precisely the reason why.

This is like putting someone in a cage, locking the only door, then saying, “It’s your fault for not finding another way out.” And it confirms one of the most important lessons we can draw from this whole gay marriage debate: The Religious Right is made up of a bunch of assholes.

We feel young Republicans and conservatives are open-minded and, in some ways, are very different from their parents’ generation. That doesn’t mean we are ready to stand for allowing the legal definition of marriage to be stretched into areas it does not belong for the pursuit of convenience or social pressure.

Go fuck yourself.

Is the ability to visit your spouse in the hospital a matter of “convenience”? If you think it is, then you really are a completely inhuman piece of shit. And the state legislature of Oklahoma is starting to fill up with these. I keep hoping that the next election will give it a good flush, but find myself disappointed year after year.

Sigh. Why do you do this to me, Sooner State? Why?

All the kewl kids are bigots

Hey, kewl kids! I’m hep wit da lingo, yo, and I wanna tell you dudes about all the krunk shiznit my dawg Jesus be doin’, yo! If you wanna be da Big Dawg, you gotta be down wit da Lynch Mawb, yo! Word to yo’ mama, bitch! Those whack liberals be trippin, yo, if they ain’t down wit da rope, dawgz! Lynchin’ nigs iz DA BOMB, y’all! Jesus loves lynching, homies!

I presume the above wasn’t enough to convince anybody that lynching is the hip, cool thing to do. I presume this because I don’t think people are utter morons who need to be lead around like sheep. But that’s because I’m not Christian.

Basically any time society decides that some practice is a backwards, cruel relic of a more ignorant time that should be abandoned, someone will come along to try to make it “cool” again. I can’t imagine how it could ever work, and know of no instance where it has, but making outdated, boring, bigoted crap out to be the hip cool thing is a common pass time amongst conservatives who just can’t deal with the fact that society (like almost everything else) changes over time, but also don’t want to be viewed as a complete fossil by the under-30 crowd.

Enter this douche-toaster:

His name is Doug Giles, and unfortunately he’s not nearly as cool as that other Giles, despite being much younger. No, this Giles is senior pastor at Clash Church (apparently Rob Liefeld consulted on the name). This is how he describes himself at his TownHall.com profile:

Doug Giles is the Big Dawg at ClashDaily.com. Watch him on ClashTV. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter. And check out his NEW BOOK, Sandy Hook: When Seconds Count, Police Are Minutes Away.

“Big Dawg”. Jesus titty balls, do I hate these guys. The “hip” preachers, the ones who try to make Christianity out to be something other than the outdated, irrelevant superstition that it is.  When I was a kid and my parents forced me to go to church, our youth group was subjected to endless amounts of simpering, pandering horseshit from these types, and endless amounts of inane praise “music” cynically designed to mimic modern pop music without any of that nasty nuance or originality or creativity. These guys are an utterly empty marketing ploy more ill conceived, out-of-touch and downright cringe-inducing than McDonalds’ infamous I’d Hit It campaign. Honestly, I’d rather listen to one of the stodgy old preachers and the classic hymns than have to spend five minutes around one of these types.

Religion is not, nor will it ever be, hip. It’s not cool. It’s not edgy. It’s not. It’s just not. Religion is everything old and backwards and boring and patronizing. It’s the apotheosis of the status quo, the lionization of the imagined past, the bulwark against which anything new or progressive or challenging or groundbreaking must contend. Religion is Spam, station wagons, public lynchings and “Damn kids get off my lawn” all rolled up into one big, greasy, hypocritical wad of irrational dogma. Wearing sunglasses and calling yourself “dawg” won’t change that. You’re not hip. You’re lame. Deal with it.

But of course, he won’t. Rather, he’ll write insufferable op-eds at Town Hall full of hamfisted humor and confabulated coolness to try to convince the millennial generation that all the kewl kids want to interfere with gay peoples’ relationships.

The other day I was on a radio show being interviewed about my new Sandy Hook Massacre book when the conversation turned to gay marriage. I’m sitting there thinking, “Huh?” … “I didn’t sign up to talk about gay marriage” … “Good Lord, man, I’d rather watch Yoko Ono do an interpretive dance to “Riders on the Storm” then yap about two big lesbians wanting to get hitched.”

Huh huh. It’s funny ’cause they’re fat. And gay. Gayfat is funny. Huh huh.

Number One. Before I directly address the gay marriage issue, allow me to state that I care more about the $16.7 trillion in debt that our nation’s mired in, our evaporating Bill of Rights and national security issues than I do whether or not Brad and Chad can be betrothed. Call me selfish and ill focused.

Okay. You’re selfish and ill focused.  Talking about gay marriage doesn’t stop you from also talking about other (real or imagined) problems. And the fact that you’re writing an entire article on gay marriage makes me suspect that your claim that you don’t want to talk about it is disingenuous at the very least. But more importantly, the reason you don’t want to talk about it is that you want to be able to outlaw someone’s basic rights without ever having to justify your actions to the public. You don’t want to talk about it because it’s easier to oppress a minority when no one talks about them. So, yes, you’re selfish and ill focused. You’re also an assfuck.

In addition, I told my host that, as long as we have men and women in harms way who have to ration food, fuel and ammo due to the sequestration, I don’t give a rat’s backside about gay marriage. I’m so mean, eh?

Listen, right wing nuts. We need to get something straight. Do you, or do you not, support budget cuts? It seems like you’re always asking for them, but then when they come (along with the loss of jobs that always coincides with budget cuts) you suddenly start bitching and moaning about how horrible budget cuts are.

You got what you asked for. The government slashed the budget. People lost their jobs as a result. This is what you wanted. Stop fucking crying about it.

With that said, I went on to inform Mr. Radio Show Host, that if he really wants to get down to brass tacks regarding where I stand on the gay marriage issue, well then, here it is: I am against gay marriage, especially Liza Manelli’s former marriage to David Getz. That was the gayest thing that I have ever seen in my life and it should have never happened.

Sigh… This is just getting tedious.

Not knowing why he was so interested in the gay marriage debacle I asked him, “Why do you care? Do you want to marry a man or something? Do you think you got a shot at Ryan Seacrest?” He was speechless.

“Speechless” is the hip new lingo for this:

https://i2.wp.com/fc09.deviantart.net/fs50/f/2009/330/2/a/Facepalm_by_iceman_3567.jpg

As our segment was wrapping up I told him if he wanted someone on his show that’s a staunch supporter of gay marriage then he should invite on some divorce lawyers because they can’t wait for the gay marriages to get a-crankin’.

That’s funny, seeing as divorce lawyers tend to be busiest in states like Oklahoma, where gay marriage is illegal and churches are more common than Starbucks and red dirt. (I don’t say this to demean Oklahoma–I love my home state. I just wish it didn’t contain so many hypocrites and morons.)

In all seriousness, I’m kind of torn on the gay marriage issue

How long is this “seriousness” thing going to last?

I’m split between Ted Nugent’s take on homo-matrimony and Jesus Christ’s opinion on the issue.

Not even one sentence, I see.

Nugent told me a few years back that he didn’t mind gay marriage if: A). We didn’t call it marriage. B). We didn’t have to pay for it via our tax dollars and C). it was only between two good-looking lesbians.

This is why A) nobody gives a fuck about Nugent, B) I wish our tax dollars didn’t go to either of his two marriages (but nobody ever asked me–at least he only married 2 out of the 4 women he’s had children with…), and C) telling the same joke for a 1,067th time doesn’t make it funny.

Hmmm. Interesting, Uncle Ted but what would Jesus do? What’s Christ’s take on the gay marriage conundrum?

No, let’s go back to Nugent. I can almost take him seriously.

I’d like to know because, as a Christian, I probably ought to listen more to Jesus than to the “Motor City Mad” man on such a serious issue, right? Right.

Wrong. You shouldn’t listen to either of them.

According to Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus said, many moons ago when He was walking the mean streets of Galilee, that marriage is a union that God ordained between a man and a woman. He said it. I didn’t. So, if you’re going to get pissy then take it up with the Son of God.

How ’bout I take it up with the bloviating frat boy douchenozzle insisting that I should give a fuck about what this alleged “Son of God” had to say at all?

Now, I would remind those who supposedly take their cue from Jesus that there were gay dudes and dudettes around Him in His day.

Ugh. Just ugh. You are not hip, motherfucker. Stop trying. I’m only 31, and already I’m old enough to know better than to try and talk this way. Just give it up, “dawg”.

It’s not like homosexuality just started showing up during Liberace’s lifetime.

Holy shit balls! Liberace was gay! That’s such a clever pop culture reference!

Gays have been around since the dawn of man. Matter of fact, I think that was the name of the first gay rock band.

Can we please just go back to Ted Nugent? He’s a piece of shit and all, but at least he’s unintentionally funny sometimes. This shit is just becoming intolerable.

Indeed, several cities such as Sodom and Gomorrah celebrated homosexuality, as did ancient Greece and Rome. By the way, what ever happened to those cities and cultures?

They declined, as all cultures eventually do. The decline had nothing to do with homosexuality. In fact, the Roman Empire’s decline actually coincided with its widespread acceptance of Christianity. Not that you care about stupid, uncool things like facts.

The God of Love said, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the midst of a culture that contained gays, that when it comes down to what constitutes a marriage in God’s eyes, well … that would be a union that is fundamentally betwixt a guy and a girl.

Lo, doth he bravely proclaim the majority opinion in a society where a minority doth have the temerity to exist! And in public!

But then again … what does Jesus know? Heck … He can’t be smarter than a postmodern twenty-something, can He? Surely, He’s not keener than a radical Leftist. Jesus couldn’t have been shrewder than say, Rosie O’Donnell when it comes to the divine pattern prescribed for the continuity of God’s created order for humanity, right? Huh?

He was certainly not as smart as Thomas Jefferson, and yet Jefferson owned slaves. The man was a product of his times, and no matter how smart he was, he was still wrong on many issues. There’s no reason to think Jesus had any special insights on sexual politics in the 21st century; just like Socrates, smart as he may have been, is not a very good source for erudition on modern geopolitics. And what the fuck is “the divine pattern prescribed for the continuity of God’s created order for humanity”? Theology seems to give people this weird predilection for lapsing into laughable prolixity whenever they want to say something like “Fuck fags” or “Bitches need to get back in the kitchen.”

So, what do you guys think? Was Jesus out to lunch on what constitutes a marriage in God’s eyes or what?

Yes. His lunch was penis.

With all that said, how effectively is Doug Giles reaching America’s youth? Let’s look at some comments on his op-ed…

Ann Anon Wrote: 12 minutes ago (8:57 PM)

 Imagine; in the 50’s I stopped some of my girlfriends from speculating on the relationship between our girl team’s two coaches who were ah, roommates and the subject of homosexuality. A suspicion like that would get them both fired. I told them it was a terrible thing to accuse two nice ladies of without any more proof than a lease in common. They agreed and never mentioned it again. I thought I was really brave to stand up to my fellow students. And now in the year 2013 that makes me a homophobe.
I see he’s locked in the crucial Under 80 demographic.
Georgetwin-In-Pa Wrote: 2 hours ago (6:57 PM)

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!The FAT PIG, Rosie O’Doughnuts is ALREADY divorced!!!http://www.ihatethemedia.com/rosie-odonnell-kelli-carpenter
Bwahahaha! That totally validates Nugent’s multiple marriages!
uvuvuv Wrote: 3 hours ago (5:41 PM)

if the gays are so wildly accepted, where are the movies? the silly comedy romances? if they were truly so accepted the theaters would have lines 2 blocks long for the gay loves gay movies. so far all we had was broken back mountain. one movie.
The pop culture knowledge is strong with this crowd. I’d tell them about my favorite gay movie, Room in Rome, but I’m having trouble shouting over the gigantic erection I get every time I watch it.
uvuvuv Wrote: 3 hours ago (5:36 PM)

gays are mutants and i think if we throw society over to them we might as well have 6 fingers pride parades or spinal bifida studies in the public schools starting with kindergarten. churches can welcome their new cystic fibrosis members, and the muscular dystrophy legation can petition for acceptance in the nba. after all, fair is fair.
Dear Doug Giles,
This is your audience. You brought this on yourself.
Sincerely,
Wes
P.S. Go fuck yourself.

Marriage Police – Not just for gays any more…

For all of you opponents of gay marriage out there, you might want to keep this in mind. A state legislator in Oklahoma is proposing a bill to restrict divorces. Having already amended the frickin’ state constitution to ban not only gay marriage but any type of recognition or benefits for gay couples, Oklahoma is now going after the straight couples who just don’t have enough Jesus in the bedroom.

Promoting strong marriages is an “obvious” way to improve the health, education, public safety and economy in Oklahoma, Rep. Mark McCullough said Monday.

Oh, yeah, “obvious”. When I see problems with education, economy, health and public safety, the first thing I think is, “This wouldn’t be an issue if only people were forced to remain in loveless marriages which make them utterly miserable.” I think this because I’m very stupid, shallow, and a giant fucking petty-minded busybody.

Joined at a news conference by ministers, social organizations and representatives with Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, the Sapulpa Republican said good government policy should address marriage and divorce and their impacts on families, children, poverty and crime.

The conference was held to kick off National Marriage Week, which continues through Feb. 14.

See this, straight people? Having already crushed gay marriage in Oklahoma, these organizations must now seek out another target. Did anyone actually think they would just stop after successfully fucking gay people over? Nope. Having made the gays in OK miserable, they’re now looking at you, straight people. This is what it feels like to have the government fucking with your personal life. You empowered these people, so you might as well get used to it. They won’t go away voluntarily.

“We’re not here to scold, we’re not here to be a judge — we’re here to say the more the family fails the more government has to get involved, and that’s just the facts,” McCullough said.

We’re not here to judge. We’re just here to say you’re a failure and that the government needs to wrest control of your genitals from you.

We declare you to be immoral. Then we control you. You know: “Facts.”

McCullough is the author of House Bill 1548, which would not allow married couples to divorce on the grounds of incompatibility if there are minor children living in the home, if they have been married longer than 10 years or if either party objects.

Like so much of the right wing dog shit out there today, this is “for the children.” How exactly is having divorced parents worse than having two parents who despise each other? Well, of course it’s not. But who gives a fuck about the reality of the situation when there are people out there living lifestyles I can’t treat like my own game of The Sims?

The bill is one of seven filed by legislators this year that would make it more difficult to divorce.

We’re seriously not far from legislators literally wiping their asses and submitting the soiled toilet paper to be law. They aren’t that far away from it.

Senate Bill 105 would legalize “covenant” marriages, which would require counseling both before marriage and during divorce; Senate Bill 961 would require parents undergoing divorces to attend classes and receive information about divorce’s adverse effects on children.

But remember, requiring you simply to register your semi automatic assault rifle is FUCKING COMMUNISM!!!!!!

Marriage occurrences in Oklahoma, according to the Center for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics, was 7.2 per 1,000 people in 2010, tied for 20th in the nation. The divorce rate was 5.2 per 1,000 people, tied for third.

And instead of improving the situation, the only solution is just to use government force to compel people to stay together, even if their marriage is a complete mess that never should have existed to begin with.

Jesus love misery. And misery loves company. Especially if that company is small children who have no option but to spend their formative years in a loveless household, being raised by two people who shouldn’t even be in the same room with each other. You know, for the children.