Don’t let the facts get in your way

As soon as I saw the headline, I knew exactly how the religious right would react.

Utah polygamy ruling criticized

And I bet now that you’ve seen it, you do too. First, let’s look at just what this ruling is…

(CNN) – Some social conservatives are blasting Utah’s ruling striking down part of that state’s law banning polygamy.

The suit was brought by the stars of the television reality series “Sister Wives,” and a federal judge’s ruling Friday throws out the law’s section prohibiting “cohabitation,” saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom.

Got that? “Cohabitation”. As in living together. The law told consenting adults whom they can and can’t live with. Obviously unconstitutional. It remains illegal in Utah to obtain more than one valid marriage certificate, but the law can’t tell you whom you can live with, regardless of marital status.

Cue the froth.

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum – who a decade ago came under fire for comments indicating polygamy would become legal if courts banned anti-sodomy laws – responded to the ruling over the weekend.

“Sometimes I hate it when what I predict comes true,” the former U.S. senator tweeted Sunday.

Sometimes I hate it when Santorum opens his big fucking mouth. Actually, I hate that all of the time. The man is constitutionally incapable of uttering a single sentence that isn’t demonstrably false and/or idiotic and/or bigoted and/or ignorant and/or frothing.

The ruling didn’t legalize polygamy, idiot. It legalized cohabitation, which is something the government has no business meddling with in the first place. How would you like it if the government told you you couldn’t live with the one you loved?

The Family Research Council, led by prominent social conservative Tony
Perkins, also weighed the Utah statute, warning of “serious consequences
of redefining marriage.”

Tony Perkins is just not a human being. He’s a loosely organized collection of god-humper buzzwords with an automatic hair trigger. Did someone mention marriage in any capacity or context? REDEFINING MARRIAGE!

“Throughout history, marriage has been future-oriented, focused on the
next generation and the best interests of children. The reality is that
society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad,” Perkins said
Monday.

And these kids get a mom and a dad…and a mom and a mom and a mom. Just like in those good old Biblical days you claim to believe in so literally.

“However, redefining marriage to fulfill the desires of same-sex couples
or polygamists only moves society away from this vital public interest
and creates social chaos.”

Five hicks in Utah get to live in the same house. They’re still not legally married. The only thing that’s been redefined here is the meaning of “redefined” whenever Tony Perkins blubbers it out.

In striking down the section of the law Friday, Judge Clark Waddoups used a 2003 Supreme Court landmark gay rights case Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that anti sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

During that Supreme Court ruling a decade ago, Santorum told the Associated Press that bans on sodomy would open the doors to a “right to polygamy” and other sexual acts.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” Santorum said in 2003.

If there were no right to adultery, then half the Republican Party would be in fucking prison.

But Waddoups’ ruling keeps in place the ban on bigamy “in the literal
sense – the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two
purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into
more than one purportedly legal marriage.”

Fuck off, facts! We’ve got a narrative to shill!

Some religious groups also criticized the ruling.

What the fuck is the point of this sentence? Is anyone OTHER than religious nuts criticizing it?

“This is what happens when marriage becomes about the emotional and
sexual wants of adults, divorced from the needs of children for a mother
and a father committed to each other for life,” said Russell Moore, of
the Southern Baptist Convention.

See how he weaseled that word “divorce” into his lie? This is the verbal equivalent of putting the Republican base in a jar and shaking it to make them fight. It’s all about stimulation, not information. Anyone with half a monkey brain knows that having children was never a requirement for people getting married. Childless marriages have never been illegal in this country. And even if that were the issue, it’s fucking irrelevant because the current case hasn’t altered the marriage laws in any way.

“Polygamy was outlawed in this country because it was demonstrated,
again and again, to hurt women and children. Sadly, when marriage is
elastic enough to mean anything, in due time it comes to mean nothing.”

Sometimes it hurts women and children. If girls are forced into plural marriages against their will, that’s obviously harmful.

But that’s not an issue of polygamy. ONE forced marriage is bad. Multiple forced marriages are just more of the same bad.

Once again, the real issue here is the one thing that god-humpers refuse to acknowledge: CONSENT. The idea of a woman consenting of her own free will to pretty much anything is antithetical to the misogynistic beliefs that god-humpers desperately cling to. Women and girls can’t self determine. They can’t act and choose under their own power. They have to be sheltered and controlled. So protecting them from sexual predators becomes a matter of controlling other people’s private behavior, rather than punishing those who do things to them without their consent (which is the way it SHOULD be done).

Todays lesson: Every god-humper is a liar. And not everyone who claims to protect women and girls is a feminist.

Advertisements

Cloning the Language

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

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

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

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

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

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

He went on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outlawing human cloning would provide salutatory benefits

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it would protect women.

You have got to be shitting me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outlawing human cloning is the essential progressive act.

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

Catholic revenge porn brings out the prudes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ArmyTx1 day ago
All looks no brains.

Pretty girls are dumb! What an astute observation!

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

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

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

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

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

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

She’s a slut! Amiright amiright amiright!

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

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

lexie161 day ago
Porn also promotes sex trafficking and slavery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fucking idiot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kidding, of course. 😉

How to be a Christian asshole

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

How to share the gospel with homosexuals

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

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

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

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

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

Pervert.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about a woman planning an abortion?

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

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

It’s even higher on the Misogynistic Douchefuck list.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What fucking “popular opinion” are you referring to?

Even the staunchest fundamentalist atheist believes in God.

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

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

It better not be the Bible.

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

God fucking damn it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

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

Many will be burned alive.

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

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

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

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

I say this in all seriousness:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________

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

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

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.

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.