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.

DJesus Freaks Uncorked

The fact that SNL somehow still finds a way to remain relevant convinces me that the American public hates comedy and wants to see it crushed beneath the iron heel of predictability, laziness, and immaturity. The show is almost always utterly unfunny, and yet somehow remains on the air after almost forty years of Nickleback-level mediocrity and scrotum-scraping tediousness in almost every sketch the show has ever aired. It is rare to see a skit that is actually funny (a few of the Celebrity Jeopardy skits managed some genuine laughs).  Most of the time the best “comedy” that the show can come up with is a sketch that’s funny in concept, but lazy and predictable in execution.

The recent Tarantino spoof called “DJesus Uncrossed” is an example of this. Is a movie about a vengeance-crazed DJesus storming through DJerusalem viciously killing Romans and avenging the plight of the DJews a funny idea? Fuck yeah, it is. I would like to see it done well. Alas, this is SNL, so ’twas not to be. Instead, we just get Jesus killing people. Obviously a Jesus parody based on Django Unchained will involved Jesus murdering Romans. That’s supposed to be the starting point of the DJoke. It’s the premise of the DJoke, not the DJoke itself. You’re then supposed to build on that, adding new humorous layers and observations. Maybe have DJesus walk across the water to kick off the heads of swimming Romans like footballs off a tee. Maybe have a weird thing about the holes in his feet to parody Tarantino’s creepy foot fetish (we all know he’d love to fuck a foot-hole). Or point out that, unlike Inglourious Basterds or Django Unchained, there’s no evidence to show that it didn’t actually happen this way. (At least, no less evidence than what the Gospel accounts have.)

There might have been ways to make these things funny, and that’s what they should do. But that requires the writers to make an attempt to do their jobs. Instead we just get 2 minutes of DJesus killing Romans in re-creations of scenes from various Tarantino movies, as if the mere sight of it will be funny every single time. It’s not. The humor wears off almost immediately, and there isn’t an attempt to build on the premise until the very end, when a fictional critic describes it as a less violent version of the Passion of the Christ, followed by a swipe at the fact that Tarantino likes to include the word “nigger” in his scripts a lot. Too little, too late.

“SNL skit sucks” isn’t news. It’s in the same category as the Pope’s Catholicism and bears’ woods-shitting. But at least I can get some enjoyment out of this crappy skit, because (quite predictably) the god-humpers are freaking out about it. All it takes is a couple jokes about their imaginary friend, and their heads go *POP* as tears come gushing out over the sad plight of the adherents of the most dominant religion in the Western Hemisphere. Yes, Christians, let me taste those sweet and salty tears!

The following comments were also posted on “SNL’s” website:

–”Seriously SNL? I am one of your biggest fans, but you really crossed the line with this. I am thoroughly disgusted…”

–”Interesting how SNL continues to mock Christ. As a Christian, I was highly offended. No doubt you would not dare to attack other faiths; Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, You can do better.”

–”This is just wrong. Once again, Christians are slammed. I find it ighly unfunny making fun of something that so many hold dear…”

It’s funny how people on the right wing love to talk tough every chance they get, but when something hurts their precious religious beliefs they turn into the biggest pussies on planet earth.

My favorite response so far comes from some dingleberry named Frank Kaufmann, who seems to be yet another religionist who thinks that unthinking, reactionary, gut-based babblings can be made respectable by adding a thin veneer of superficial erudition.

The LA Times explains, “DJesus Uncrossed” may have crossed the line, with some calling it the single most offensive skit in “Saturday Night Live” history.” [sic]

A lot bothers me about the SNL airing of Djesus Uncrossed using the risen Lord Christ as subject matter to parody Tarantino’s Django Unchained.
Something tells me it’s not going to be the right things about it that bother him. Maybe it’s the pomposity of saying “risen Lord Christ” rather than just simply “Jeebus”…
These include the giddy cheers of the SNL live audience following the piece, the comments under the YouTube video of the sketch, the patent and far reaching double standard about whom it is fine to offend in American culture, the worrisome depths and numbness to which popular entertainment culture has declined, the pathological schizophrenia the [sic] obtains among left wing entertainment elite on the matter of violence, and the timing of the piece (namely the start of Lent).
Nope. None of the right things. Let’s go through these one by one.
  • the giddy cheers of the SNL live audience following the piece, [Dude. They’re told to cheer. There are frickin’ signs in the studio that say “Applause” and “Laughter” on them for this purpose. Obeying them is part of the agreement for being in the audience. Your complaint is like yelling in response to the laugh track on Full House, “Hey! That wasn’t funny! Stop laughing!”]
  • the comments under the YouTube video of the sketch, [Fucking YouTube comments? Haven’t you figured out how the internet works yet? ALWAYS IGNORE YOUTUBE COMMENTS!]
  • the patent and far reaching double standard about whom it is fine to offend in American culture, [It’s fine to offend anyone as far as I’m concerned. One of the reasons I feel that way is that “offensive” only sounds like a legitimate objection to someone who is him/herself offended. Case in point, Christians who cry persecution whenever someone makes fun of Jesus but don’t give a shit when gays complain about a gay joke.]
  • the worrisome depths and numbness to which popular entertainment culture has declined, [Getting even more pearl-clutchy and offended by every little thing would only accelerate that decline.]
  • the pathological schizophrenia the obtains among left wing entertainment elite on the matter of violence, [“Pathological schizophrenia”!  Gotta sound smart when attacking the “elite” straw man that every dumb Christian blubbers about whenever the TV appears to be smarter than he/she is.]
  • and the timing of the piece (namely the start of Lent). [We demand that shitty comedies on networks hardly anyone watches any more schedule according to our silly holiday rituals! But just ours. No need to pay attention to Ramadan or any bullshit like that. We might get offended if you avoid offending Muslims.]
Six objections have been raised, not a single one of which is even remotely legitimate. This was definitely written by a Christian.
The core of my disappointment lays [sic] not in moralist or liturgical obsessions involving legitimate charges of blasphemy (in my view a proper injunction) but in more widely applicable negatives namely that material like this is ignorant and childish. [sic]  Like a 1 year old smearing poo everywhere thinking herself an avant-garde rebel against constraining norms. [sic]
Or maybe said 1 year old wiped her ass with a thesaurus and needlessly smeared “liturgical” and “injunction” on the walls. Oh, and if you’re trying to look smart, you probably shouldn’t confuse “lay” with “lie” and put a run-on sentence right next door to a sentence fragment.
The difference between SNL’s skit and the little one smearing stink is that the child is not heavily funded, and does not participate in a network of self important figures in the multi-billion dollar entertainment industrial complex, spending your money and drinking your wine. The 1 year old thankfully is limited to her own rear-end, her own walls, her own face and hair, and she doesn’t have a thousand people excitedly cooing, under [sic]  a YouTube video imagining themselves champions of courageous and daring horizons of self expression.
I’ll give Frank this: I have never before seen a poop-based analogy pursued with such dedication. Bonus points for the overly-elaborate poop joke in a paragraph accusing the opposition of being immature.
I have, however, seen the kind of mind-reading Frank is attempting. I’ve seen it precisely 378 gajillion times (using Steven Seagal math). It’s pretty common for religious dingbats to create straw atheists motivated by whatever pet boogedy-boo(s) the author obsesses over. Obviously, Frank’s boogedy-boo is (perceived) transgressiveness in the art world, and he imagines a world full of liberals who think anything that offends Frank is therefore a masterpiece of rebellion. Never mind if anyone actually thinks that way, and in this case I would say hardly anybody possibly would. I find the mind-reading particularly amusing in this case, since no human being in this world or any other could use terms like “avant-garde” or “courageous” or “daring” to describe SNL. It does say a lot about Frank’s understanding of what the rest of the world considers to be daring or transgressive, though.
The putrid outcome of the little one in her diapers further resembles the Djesus skit in that neither is funny.
Jesus. You are really fucking committed to this poop thing, aren’t you?
SNL has long been lazy in creating elaborate enactments of profoundly average ideas. This skit had a single funny line, calling the SNL grotesquery less violent than Mel Gibson’s cartoonish and bloody depiction of Jesus.
You’ll get no argument from me on this point. It shows that at least part of you sees the real problem with this sketch. Now, let’s get back to the part of you that’s stupid and whiny.
The delighted squeals and cheers from the SNL live audience can probably be forgiven. Anyone who’s ever been a part of a live TV audience knows the demeaning experience of being manipulated by second rate comics or MCs telling you when to laugh and when to applaud. It is embarrassing. Some years back I went to see Tracy Chapman on the Letterman Show. Loved her, hated being told what to do all night long by cue card holding clowns.
Then why in the fuck did you object to it at the beginning of your op-ed? And why in the holy cunt-shitting, cocksucking, ass-badgering, poodle-fucking hell would anyone ever go to a Tracy Chapman concert? If Tracy Chapman were headlining the Free Limitless Beer and Pussy Festival I still wouldn’t go.
The freedom to offend Christians in a politically correct America is a disgrace.
Yeah! Fuck freedom!
Calling an athlete athletic has cost commentators their jobs and careers.
CITATION PLEASE.
Defiling the sacred and offending sincere religious believers is fine.
Especially if it’s someone else’s “sacred” that’s being defiled. How many people wanna take a bet on whether Frank complained when South Park ridiculed Scientology, Islam, or Mormonism?
A US army handbook in preparation reported by WSJ warns “that soldiers should avoid “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” [and] “any criticism of pedophilia.” [sic] So we must be careful not to criticize pedophilia, but it is fine to portray the beloved object of worship and love for millions of Americans as a violent, underdeveloped, sadistic thug.
“We”? Are “we” all in a combat zone in Afghanistan? Because that’s the only possible way the two situations would be comparable. Oh wait. I forgot your were doing that Muslim Dog Whistle thing. The thing where you treat two completely unrelated situations as the same, but it’s okay because it involves Muslims.
This is the contemptible double-standard in contemporary America.
No, this is the safety-standards for soldiers serving in Afghanistan (who are trying to avoid getting blown up by religious freaks even more insane than the freaks in America) and the existence of a crappy SNL skit in America that makes god-humpers feel poopy inside (which leads to smearing shitty op-eds everywhere). Two unrelated situations. No double-standard at all. But lot’s of well-deserved references to feces.
Furthermore SNL chooses to air this skit to coincide with the dawn of the Lenten season, when millions of quiet, sincere, humble American Christians are seeking help from Jesus to be sorry for our shortcomings, and to try to be better people.
You can’t make fun of us, because we’re so GOOD! You’re also not allowed to make fun of the fact that we have this disgustingly self-righteous attitude about ourselves!
And galloping god-balls would I like to see more of these “quiet, sincere, humble American Christians.” I’m getting really sick of the whining, bigoted, thin-skinned, humorless, sanctimonious, complaining, asshole variety.
The core tragedy of the piece lies most fully in associating Jesus with violence and revenge.
Here’s what I’ve learned about Frank so far. He confuses prolixity with profundity. He thinks “Hurts believers’ delicate, precious feelings” is a legitimate objection. He really, really, really likes poop jokes. He really likes the word “core”. And it’s good to see that he’s finally realized the difference between “lies” and “lays”. But he’s fucking cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs if he thinks Jesus hasn’t been associated with violence and revenge for the past 2000 years.
Jesus refused that a single sword be drawn, even in his own defense when his life was in danger. As a violent mob descended on Jesus, he demanded a follower put up (re-sheath) his sword (Mt 26:52), and warned him about escalating cycles of violence.
That same godly motherfucker, according to your own bullshit gospels, also did this:

John 2:13-17

Jesus Clears the Temple Courts

13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

He whips people for promoting capitalism at church! Hell, Christian Christ-fetishists have already included Jesus’ violent behavior in their cunt-sniffing hagiographical films of the bastard:
Where’s the outrage over this violent depiction of Jesus’ behavior? And keep in mind, the SNL hacks were just making a bad joke. The makers of that even shittier film, on the other hand, claim Jesus actually did that shit.
SNL has Jesus as a gruesome figure of revenge, yet the final act in Jesus life was to pray for the Romans. As Jesus hung to die, Roman Centurions gambled over his clothes. Jesus begged God’s forgiveness of them. With barely breath in his lungs Jesus tried to speak in defense of these men, arguing that their misdeeds were because of their ignorance. They did not understand what they were doing. (Luke 23:34)
The gospels differ on what his last words were. But they’re all in agreement that those were not his last words. In fact, Christian tradition has him saying six more things after the whole “They known not what they do” blubbering. (Did it ever occur to you that they knew exactly what they were doing, Jesus? Maybe a god who sends people to eternal torment for refusing to believe without evidence shouldn’t be welcome on this planet.) Hell, those aren’t even his last words in the very gospel Frank is quoting. Luke 23:43 and 23:46 have him saying and doing other things later on. Read your god damn Bible, Frank!
SNL producers choose to portray a vengeful and violent Jesus on the eve of the most sacred and most reflective 40 days of the liturgical calendar. Hear still that barely audible prayer recorded in Luke.
Hear also the violent, vengeful Jesus portrayed throughout the book of Revelation. Hell, Revelation could easily be titled “Jesus Haploid Christ Ass-Fucks the Entire Human Species” without misrepresenting its message.
I’m sick and tired of the religious trying to have it both ways. They want even non-believers to treat their invisible friend with reverence and respect and gush about how peaceful and loving he was, and they want to say that said non-believers will all be killed and thrown into the pits of hell for eternal torment simply for the crime of being non-believers. Jesus, as conservative Christians view him, is a sick, disgusting, violent, bigoted god, and anyone who says differently hasn’t read Revelation. Pretty much the only thing that SNL got right was the fact that there are a frighteningly large number of Christians out there who have a gigantic god-boner just thinking about the day when Jesus will return and destroy all the atheists and Muslims and everyone else who doesn’t buy into their twisted, sadistic eschatology. Prince of Peace my ass.

Goliath Whines

So they’ve released the letters Jerry Sandusky and his wife gave to the judge prior to his being sentenced for molesting ten children over 15 years. Keep in mind, at the time he’s writing this he’s already been convicted. According to the court, he’s guilty. This is the time to try to convince  the judge to give one a merciful sentence. So how does he decide to address the court?

I write without expectation or a plea for leniency.

What? Then why are you writing at all?

As I sat looking at walls, I spent many hours reliving this ordeal. First, I looked at me, my vulnerability, my naivety (some say stupidity), and my trust in people.

Oh, poor you. Let’s all throw a pity party for the guy who coached at one of the biggest programs in the country, and who used his wealth and influence to lure young boys from troubled backgrounds into the showers where he raped them. I see Disney making an inspirational film about this in a few years. “The Little Child Molester Who Could” starring John Goodman as Rapey McGee sounds about right. They could get Brett Ratner to direct.

There were so many people involved in the orchestration of this conviction (media, investigators, prosecutors, “the system”, Penn State, and the accusers). It was well done. They won! When I thought about how it transpired, I wondered what they had won. I thought of the methods, decisions, and allegations.

This isn’t a game, Rapey, and it’s not a conspiracy either. Just how fucking delusional is this guy? Does he really believe that anyone is going to fall for this?  Hey, Rapey, the reason why you “wonder what they won” is because there is absolutely no reason for all these groups to conspire against you. Collectively they’ve got nothing to gain by railroading you. Get off your fucking high horse and realize that you are not so important that the whole world would go out of its way to bring you down. You’re a pedo football coach, not a god.

What would be the outcome of all the accusers and their families who were investigated? I knew the answer. All of their issues would surface. They would no longer be these poor, innocent people, as portrayed.

We all knew the victim blaming was coming, didn’t we? But even as victim blaming goes, Sandusky starts to get pretty god damn vile:

I have been blamed for all of their failures and shortcomings, but nobody mentioned the impact of the people who spent much more time with them than I did. Nobody mentioned the impact of abandonment, neglect, abuse, insecurity, and conflicting messages that the biological parents might have had in this.

Oh, so this is really about the victims blaming “all their shortcomings” on poor little you. Obviously the impoverished families of these charity kids are bullying the “vulnerable” wealthy, famous guy.

Those who have worked with troubled lives realize a common reaction for those with low self esteem is often to blame others.

It’s also a common reaction from self-absorbed, deluded perverts.

Maybe, they will have a better place to live, a new car, access to more highs, but they won’t change. Most of their rewards will be very temporary.

Well, I hope they enjoy all those new houses and cars they got from me shower-raping them.  I swear, some people just have no gratitude for a good old charity rape.

When I reflected, I realized much of what transpired was about protection. I was placed in protective custody; “the system” protected “the system”, the media, the prosecution, the civil attorneys, and the accusers. Everybody protected themselves. Penn State, with its own system, protected their public image, their decisions, and the allegations. The authorities were protected. Media protected their jobs and ambitions. Prosecutors protected their jobs and egos. “The system” protected the prosecution. As the stakes became higher, people had more to protect. Civil attorneys were protected.

Uh, actually, I’m pretty sure that this was mostly about protecting children from being raped.

The accusers were protected and provided access to potential financial gain, free attorneys, accolades, psychologists, and attention.

No, I mean protecting them BEFORE you rape them. You know, so all the attorneys and psychologists would be unnecessary.

And WTF? “Attention”? Really? Most of the victims’ names were never even publicly revealed. And rape victims are usually so ashamed of what happened to them that drawing lots of attention to it is the last thing they want.

But whatever, man. “The system” and all that, you know.

Then I thought of not being able to be with my wife Dottie, not seeing our dog, Bo, not being there for our kids, not seeing our grandchildren mature…

Okay, stop right there.

Instead of walls, I saw great memories: I saw loved ones who will carry the light; I saw family and friends; I saw those who overcame huge obstacles; I saw all the people who thrived with a little of our help and hope; I saw a locker room with people hugging and crying as national champs; I saw all the people who have stood by me; I saw all the inspirational cards and letters I had received;

Great speech, coach. And if this were the locker room before the big game, it might have some kind of point.

I saw me throwing thousands of kids up in the air and them asking for more;

EWWW!!!

I saw me in hundreds of water battles that nobody wanted to end;

EWWW EWWW EWWWW!!!!!

I saw black, white, brown, yellow, young, old, gifted, and handicapped all at our home; I saw kids laughing and playing; I saw a big, lovable dog licking their faces;

What the fuck is wrong with you??? You’ve just been convicted of child molestation. Don’t talk to the judge who’s about to sentence you about how you fantasize about child face licking, even if it’s a dog doing it.

Again: Ew!

The book with the most impact for me was entitled Left to Tell. It was about an amazing woman of tremendous faith who survived the Rwandan Holocaust. Over a million people were killed because they had to pick sides. She talked about what happened. In the words of a pastor, “I’ve seen these killing sprees before – once the blood lust is in the air, you can trust no one, not even your own children.” There was betrayal and murder. Families turned against one another. Best friends became enemies. Those who had been helped at one point in their life sought and killed those who had helped them. In a lesser way I’ve experienced this.

No. No, no, no, no, a million times No.

The sheer fucking shamelessness of this guy makes me want to puke. Being convicted of child molestation is JUST LIKE the civil war in Rwanda. Un-fucking-believable.

My trust in people, systems, and fairness has diminished. My faith in God who sends light through the darkness has remained.

Must be Catholic. God is very fond of kiddie-fuckers. Just one more reason to tell him to fuck off, in my opinion.

I was supposed to be David but failed to pick up the sling shot. Goliath won, and I must deal with the outcome.

No, you pompous, arrogant, bloated, perverted, self-centered, sick-minded, delusional gas bag. You are not David here. The victims are not Goliath.

You were Goliath compared to the ten year old boy you raped in a shower 11 years ago. You had wealth and power and physical strength on your side. He had nothing and no one to protect him, not even that coward McQueary who saw you do it and ran away rather than call the cops. You don’t get to be the victim here.

Sandusky’s also-evil wife also wrote a smug, self-righteous letter to the judge. It’s more of the same shit: victim-blaming, false martyrdom, whining, etc. etc. And as you might expect, it ends with this:

I pray each day that God will give me the strength to do what is right and that I will be able to hold our family together.

If you need any more proof that there is no God and we are alone in this universe, look no further than Jerry Sandusky. Earlier I called Mike McQueary a coward for witnessing a rape but not calling police. God, who is supposedly infinitely more powerful than McQueary, is even worse. God is infinitely more cowardly than McQueary or any of the others who knew but did nothing at Penn State. No benevolent God would sit by and watch a child be raped and do nothing to stop it. No maundering, logic-chopping theodicy from the “sophisticated” theologians can justify God’s inaction when it comes to the worst of human suffering, which would have to be violence against children.

Jerry Sandusky spent at least fifteen years molesting impoverished or troubled children while living a wealthy lifestyle. Fifteen years before he was finally brought to justice. Only a tiny fraction of the people who enabled this behavior will ever see justice. And Sandusky and those few who do see justice will blame the victims for their “suffering”. The worst part? This is only a tiny, tiny horror when compared with what the Catholic Church has done to children for centuries, often getting away scott free and attacking others who might even suggest that they should be held accountable. And these people, who are most dangerous to our children, then hold themselves up and the arbiters of morality!

There. Is. No. God.