Poor Persecuted Christians (Not)

This demonstrates what the repulsive "Freedom To Discriminate" law being pushed in Arizona, along with the people advocating for it, are actually doing. Enshrining discrimination into law. Enshrining the right to hate, and punish, people for simply being who they are, into law.

It's monstrous. Who exactly are the evil ones here? Certainly not LGBT people, who are simply trying to gain the same rights heterosexual people have taken for granted for centuries. The right to marry. The right to form families. The right to live out their lives and participate in their society, free from prejudice.

This should not be threatening to any religious person. Another person's marriage, and another person's life, has nothing to do with yours, and your God loves all people, after all. The fact that the supporters of SB 1062 are trying to put forth the excuse of "religious freedom" to deny basic rights to anyone who falls afoul of a "sincerely held religious belief" (in much the same way as "Stand Your Ground" laws provide an excuse for murder), says a lot about them, none of it nice. They know they are losing the war against gay marriage; the dominoes of the states are falling, sometimes daily. Justice Scalia, much to his chagrin, laid the groundwork, and sooner or later (probably sooner) laws and amendments against same-sex marriage will go the same way as laws against interracial marriage, along with dodos and dinosaurs. Total extinction. It can't come soon enough.

So instead, knowing they are destined to lose, these people are taking refuge in the flimsy defense of "religious conscience," to perpetuate the same discrimination under another name and via another means. What a pathetic, twisted group of losers.

I used to call myself a Christian. Maybe I still am, in a sense. But I also know what "persecution" really means, along with George Takei and his family, Anne Frank and her family, Black Kettle and the Southern Cheyenne at Sand Creek, the Waldensians, and Hypatia of Alexandria.

If "oppression" means I have to 1) "Do unto others as I would have them do unto me," as the man whose example I claim to follow commanded (Matt. 7:12); 2) "Judge not others lest ye be judged," as the same man also stated (Matt. 7:1); and 3) "Make it your aim to live quietly and mind your own business," as advised by one of this same man's most prominent apostles (1 Thess. 4:11); then I think that's a burden I can bear.

If "persecution" means I must 1) Follow the laws and Constitution of the country I live in; 2) as a businessperson, extend service to gay people/people of a religion I don't agree with, just as I would want a pagan, atheist or Muslim to extend service to me; and 3) treat all people, no matter their ethnicity, color, or sexual orientation, as the same children of God and equals in this government's sight, then I can damn well suck it up and do it. If there is to be retribution, that's God's business, not mine.

But if those last two examples are truly "oppression" and "persecution," as opposed to the former....

...then bring it on, people.

"Ignorance is the curse of God"

Jay-sus Christ on a saltine cracker. These people must be talking about hidden aliens descended from the Roswell spaceship crash, because they're certainly not talking about female homo sapiens.

Swanson: I’m beginning to get some evidence from certain doctors and certain scientists that have done research on women’s wombs after they’ve gone through the surgery, and they’ve compared the wombs of women who were on the birth control pill to those who were not on the birth control pill. And they have found that with women who are on the birth control pill, there are these little tiny fetuses, these little babies, that are embedded into the womb. They’re just like dead babies. They’re on the inside of the womb. And these wombs of women who have been on the birth control pill effectively have become graveyards for lots and lots of little babies.

I do not think that word--"birth control"--means what you think it means.

On a more serious note, how can people be so ignorant in the so-called "information age"? Thirty seconds on Google would disabuse them of their delusions.

I don't know which is the most depressing--the idea that these people are grifters, intentionally pushing such untruthful, unscientific nonsense to raise money, or the possibility that they might actually believe it.

Asshats of the Day

I was reading a short article yesterday about the "Kiss-Mor-Chiks" day (at least my town doesn't have a Chick-Fil-A, so we were spared such idiocy) when the final two sentences of the article, as the British say,  gobsmacked me.

Peoria resident Sally Albrecht hoped to encourage both Christianity and the importance of freedom of speech.


"As a Christian, I feel I have to stand up against this," Albrecht said. "We deserve freedom of speech without the whole world coming down [on] us."

Oh HELL no.

That is unadulterated, abject, utter nonsense.

It's a complete misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

It is also, dare I say it, profoundly unAmerican, to the point where the Founding Fathers will claw themselves out of their graves and start shambling after you.

The text of the First Amendment reads as follows.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

For all you grammar junkies out there, what's the most important part of that entire sentence?

That's right--the very first word. Congress. That is, the government.

Since there weren't any brownshirts (rainbow-flagged or otherwise) at Chick-Fil-A's dragging the protesters off in paddy wagons, we'll assume the government ignored their little temper tantrum. Their protest was perfectly lawful, and as stupid as I think it was, I would defend to the death their right to kick and scream and stamp their feet.

But, just as adults tend to remark on children throwing fits, you don't get to have your tantrums--or your free speech--without consequences.

Since we've just taken Congress/the government out of the equation, that leaves our fellow citizens. As our fellow citizens have as much right to free speech as you do, that means you can certainly support Chick-Fil-A's bigotry if you so wish.

Just as our fellow citizens have the right to call you discriminatory asshats for doing so.

Any other outcome means you, as a Christian (or anyone else who wants to spout abhorrent things without being called on it), are setting up your free speech on a higher, more exalted plane than your fellow citizens' free speech.

Or, as George Orwell, so eloquently put it, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Do you really think this is what the Founding Fathers meant by the First Amendment?

Also, Ms. Albrecht (and anyone else who espouses this stupidity) what makes you think you deserve "freedom of speech without the whole world coming down [on] you"?

What, precisely, have you done to deserve that?

Yes, you're a Christian. So? So is one-third of the motherfrakking planet. You're hardly an endangered species.

If you were an endangered species and the whole world was coming down on you, the scenario would look something like this: (1) your houses of worship would be closed down; (2) the Bible would be a forbidden book, possession of which would be punishable by a prison term; (3) any prosletyzing would be cause for arrest.

Is any of that happening?

I don't know about your town, but the listings for my town, depending on search engine, turned up anywhere between 122 and 152 local churches. As far as I know, all of them are open for business, there aren't SWAT teams sitting outside or black helicopters hovering overhead, and none of the worshipers are being tased and hauled off.

Again, what makes you think you deserve free speech without consequences? Just because you're a special Christian snowflake?

Really? You can't prove your religion is the One True Faith, or that your God actually exists for that matter, any more than I can. I may believe my faith is true, and such belief may be an integral part of my life, but that doesn't constitute empirical proof.

It certainly doesn't give me cause to support discrimination.

Yes, Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-Fil-A, gets to spout off. Yes, he gets to close his chain on Sundays if he so wishes. I will defend his right to do both.

Just as I will defend my fellow citizen's right to protest his inflammatory statements, and more to the point, his support of anti-gay causes, and his company's possible employment discrimination. All of which are outlined here, and all of which are far more hurtful than someone publicly disagreeing with you.

So throw your little hissy-fit, Chick-Fil-A Christians, and whine to your heart's content about how mean people are being to you.

But until you're actually nailed to a stake like your Lord and Master, you don't have a chicken leg to stand on.

Show Me, Suckazz!

Since we're, you know, ruled by the Constitution and all, and aren't a theocracy (yet).

Seriously, I live across the street from a lesbian couple. If they could get married in my state, their marriage would have nothing to do with me, my values, my life, my decisions, and my ability and/or willingness to get married myself, no more than my marrying a man would affect them.

You'd think Republicans would understand that, being such advocates of freedom, small government, less governmental intrusion, and so on.

"The problem with political jokes is they get elected"

This is just great. I usually don't link to Huff Post, but this is worth it. A sharp reminder that in many cases today's comedians are doing what used to be called "journalism."

How to Speak Republican

Some samples:

Bible: A sacred text that provides incontestable answers when thumped.


Christmas: A holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, now rarely celebrated due to persecution by atheists.


Deficits: 1) Fiscal shortfalls incurred by Democrats that threaten to bankrupt the country. 2) Fiscal shortfalls incurred by Republicans that don't matter.


Extremist (Liberal): Espousing or adhering to political beliefs that are held by only a majority of Americans.


Fact: Information that has been verifiably posted to a RedState comment board.


Jesus: Charismatic religious leader and son of God; born in Bethlehem in the year 0; beliefs include love, charity, enhanced interrogation, privatized healthcare, elimination of the estate tax, and the right to carry concealed semiautomatic weapons.


Ronald Reagan: A fictional character based loosely on President Ronald Reagan.


I mean, really. How can sincere conservatives/Teapugs not read this and realize they're turning into a national joke? 

"No greater mischief can be created than to merge the power of religion with the power of government"

"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State.  My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."  ~George Carlin

"People who govern in the name of God attribute their own personal preferences to God, and therefore recognize no limit in imposing those preferences on other people." ~Justice Douglas Johnstone, Alabama Supreme Court

Interesting article in the Daily Beast: "Britain's Embrace of Gay Marriage." The standout quote in the article, for my money, is this: "Britain is a largely secular society these days, and at least as far as same-sex relationships are concerned, a much more civilized place than was the case in years gone by."

This, of course, will cause Republicans-slash-fundamentalist-Christians in this country to shriek and head for their fainting couches, but it just reinforces my belief--as a religious person--that there should be no co-mingling of religion and politics whatsoever. Injecting religion into politics inevitably leads to discrimination, corruption and bad law, on one side or both. Religion--any religion--is only for those who choose to believe in it, not the population at large.

There are reasons why the First Amendment to the Constitution starts off like this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." All the things the Founding Fathers could've said, and they began by prohibiting Congress from establishing an official state religion? They must've felt the separation of church and state was damned important.

Too bad modern-day Republicans, for all their blathering about "original intent," have completely lost sight of it on this subject.

"Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders"

"Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind."  ~Mikhail Gorbachev

I just caught the last few minutes of Lawrence O'Donnell's Rewrite, and at the end of it he asked a searing question.

"Republicans should ask themselves, 'What would Rick Perry do if, two thousand years ago, he was the prefect of Judea instead of Pontius Pilate'?"

There's only one answer to that question.

"Let's string that Jewish socialist troublemaker right on up!"