Look Who's Back. Back Again. Eugene's Back. Popcorn's In.

Look who's back. Look who's back. Look who's back. Look who's back. Look who's back. Look who's back. Der-er-erp derp derp derp der-er-erp.

Anyway, Horrible Eminem parody aside, let's get straight into the idiocy:

The Radical Left is waging an all-out war on Christianity in America.
They're purging any and all public expressions of the Christian faith and morals from our country.
Christian businessmen, sermons, monuments to the Ten Commandments, and even the Cross itself are in their crosshairs. 


*snerk*  No.  Well, maybe the monuments, but only on public grounds.  You can have them on your lawns (assuming your HOA isn't a bunch of goddamn pricks, but that's another issue altogether) and on your churches.


And anyone unwilling to surrender their values to their Liberal Agenda should be criminalized.
Do you agree? What do you say? 


I say you're paranoid, but then again, I'm not a loony, I just have Aspergers.

And here he says there's going to be a survey, which I'll share with you as I do it when I'm done with the donation call.

You see, the Radical Left is sneaking through Washington demanding passage of their agenda.

They are tempting Republican leadership in Congress to turn their backs on the Obama Administration's war on Christianity.

And they insist YOU actually support them.


Why, yes!  Yes I do.  And could it possibly be that the GOP congressional leadership is realizing how fucking wrong you are?


To make matters worse, more and more Republicans in Congress are abandoning the pro-Family values they were elected to defend.


No, they're starting to realize that there are gay, non-christian, and non-bigoted-christian people in their constituency as well as bigots like yourself.


Recently, Speaker of the House John Boehner signaled Republicans in Congress would not fight to restore Real Marriage if the Supreme Court mandates acceptance of homosexual "marriage" nationwide.

Really?  It's about damn time, if true.  Which it kinda is, apparently. But it's more that they're going to stay out of the case itself.

I can only begin to imagine how much more damage the Radical Left will do if they co-opt the majority of the opposition party.

As the President of Public Advocate of the United States, I’ve devoted more than thirty years to battling the anti-Christian Left in Washington.

Backed by Hollywood celebrities, the media and millions of your tax dollars, the Radical Left has many Congressmen quivering with fear -- because they wield tremendous influence in BOTH parties.

That’s why pro-Family Senators and Congressmen are counting on me to find out if you really support the radical Left's war on Christianity.

 I really doubt they are.  You're a tiny organization which doesn't do shit, Eugene.

Frankly, if you really do support Left's war on Christianity -- or if you just no longer care enough to stand up for Religious Liberty -- insiders in Congress say the foundations of Traditional Values could be destroyed in a matter of months.
 
 I really, really hope that's accurate.  This is the one thing that you've said that I honestly hope isn't just blubbering hyperbole.  I don't think it is accurate, but that'd be nice.

And now we get in to the fact-checking segment of our irregulary scheduled program:
 
The Left's war on Christianity has undermined Christians' Religious Liberties at home, in the church, and on the job:

*** A Phoenix, Arizona man was arrested for hosting a Bible study on his own property.

The Radical Left's efforts to destroy the Christian culture of America has gone beyond the public square and into our own homes.


 Lessee...I remember something a little different happening...Let's find out...

Oh, Lookit that.  It ISN'T true.  Again. He was arrested for continuous violations of building codes, including noise and public safety violations.  Sweet Dibella...

 *** The IRS cut a secret deal agreeing to monitor churches' sermons, a clear step towards muzzling all speech they disagree with.
After being sued by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the IRS committed to closely monitor church sermons for speech that could be taken as "political" in nature.

 First, that deal is not so secret.  It's from a damn lawsuit, and it was made fucking public by the plaintiff.

Second, they were supposed to be keeping churches apolitical in the first place.  That was the point of the damn lawsuit.

 *** Christian-owned businesses are being slammed with expensive lawsuits and backbreaking fines.
The Radical Left is bombarding the economic liberty of Christian entrepreneurs through government overregulation and the threat of heavy fines for refusing to submit to the redefinition of marriage.

 There is a difference between "Congratulations Bill & Ted" and "Jesus Loves the Gays".  Also, you are not being asked to officiate a wedding.  You are not even being asked to attend.  You are being asked to perform a service you would do for any straight couple.  Because the couple you refused is gay, you are guilty of violating anti-discrimination law.  Just like if the couple were mixed-race and you baked cakes for all-white or all-black weddings, you would be guilty of breaking anti-discrimination law.  That excuse of "religious liberty", by the way, was used against miscegenation back in the 60s after Loving.  It won't fly now, either.

And to add insult to injury, lobbyists for the Radical Left are paid off with your tax dollars!
That’s right, anti-Christian groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Human Rights Campaign receive millions from the government.

Hundreds of millions of tax dollars flow to anti-Christian activists through funding for so-called "civil rights" programs and research grants -- and I've read in the paper that cash even went to build a strip club!
Do you think that's acceptable?

Citation bloody needed, for one thing.  Second, these people actually do that research and put together those programs, unlike you who asks for 50 bucks from every person on your mailing list even though the cost of a single letter is under a fiver, and an e-mail even less, and sending letters and e-mails is all you bloody do.

My friends in Congress tell me there’s virtually nothing on Capitol Hill from the tens of millions of Americans like you who oppose the Radical Left's war on Religious Liberty.

 Except I don't.  Because it doesn't exist.

 They say that the Radical Left is closer than ever to criminalizing every aspect of our Christian faith.
When I heard that, I made up my mind to write to you and as many other patriotic Americans as possible. 


No you didn't, because they didn't, because they aren't.



To stop the Left's attacks on Christianity and protect our Religious Liberties, there must be an immediate outpouring of support from folks like you.


Bitch, I am fucking against you.  Geez, if it wasn't for the ideological differences, you and modern "feminists" would get along SWIMMINGLY what with your love of exaggeration and hyperbole.



Leftist activists mock me in the halls of Congress.

 Anyone got a citation for this?  Because I would actually LOVE to see this.  It'd make C-SPAN worth watching.


They say it’s too late because Americans like you don’t care enough to help, especially with the court rulings redefining marriage and President Obama's dangerous lame duck years.

If they're so "dangerous", why are they called "lame duck years"?


They say you support them. I tell them they are lying. They just laugh and tell me to give up.
Are they right? Should I just give up and let the Radical Left win?

Yes.  Yes they are, and yes you should.  Though I admit it would give me one less thing to laugh at.

Will you fight?
If, as I hope and pray, you still oppose the war on our Christianity and want to defend Religious Liberty, then please click here immediately to fill out yourAmerican Morality Survey and chip in $10 or $20 to Public Advocate
right away.

I must tell you, your financial contribution is critical.

You see, while the Radical Left get tens of millions of tax dollars, Public Advocate gets no government funds.

Good for you.  What do you want, a freakin' medal?

For many Public Advocate supporters, a contribution of $10 is a sacrificial gift.
I only ask you to prayerfully consider what you can afford.










Then you don't know me very well.
 
You see, I’ve stretched Public Advocate’s resources to contact you and other select Americans who I believe are most likely to take a stand in these difficult times.
If you won’t help, I’m afraid there is little more I can do.
But the fact is, even if every person responds, it won’t be enough to counter all the Leftist activists are doing.

 Then why the fuck do you bother?  Oh, wait, you don't.

 And not everyone will respond. Some are cowed by how pro-Family Americans are portrayed on TV. Others will count on someone else to fight the fight and carry the load. I don’t believe you are like that.

You're right: I'm not.  I don't support you.  The only reason I stay on this list is because it's funny.

I’ve identified nearly 10 million families I believe would join our struggle for morality if only I can reach them.

If you identified them the same way you identified me, you need to get your eyes, glasses, and other identifying apparatuses checked.  Badly.

The anti-Christian Radical Left boasts you support same-sex marriage, special employment rights for homosexuals, and bans on Christian speech.

Please let Congress know the anti-Christian Left is lying.


They aren't.


And let's take a look at the survey:

 Wow...that is some disingenuous question-asking there.  Not that I expected better.

The sanest one is question one, but the rest...let's fix them shall we?

2.  Should business owners be held to account for breaking the law, regardless of religious belief?

3.  Do you support giving gays protection from being fired for being gay?

4.   Should the IRS be monitoring the sermons of churches for political activism like directly sponsoring candidates for political office?

There, now your questions are far more honest.

I'M BACK BITCHES!

Yay, I remembered this blog exists!  Now I just need to re-read John, cuz I lost my notes...

Oh for the love of...

Goddamnit, Florida, how are even your LAWYERS this stupid?

The firm of Greenberg Traurig, legal counsel to the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers, this week updated a memo it sent July 1 that says the same thing: If you issue a marriage license to two people of the same sex [outside of Washington County], you've committed a first-degree misdemeanor and could spend a year in the county jail.

At first, this seems, well, normal.  But that's only because I haven't told you something rather important just yet...

As if I needed more reason to hate the Salvation Army

First, don't get me wrong, the SA does a lot of good.  They also do a lot of bad, however.  They have highly discriminatory policies that I just cannot stomach.  This recent story is just another example of this.  It's just straight up bullshit.

They wouldn't let a family in on a 14-below night because they had a teenage son.  Nevermind the teenage daughter, she can get in just fine, but that son...oh, no.  He's too old/young/whatever to stay here, so you can't stay here:

"They said he's too old to stay on the women's side, because of the women running around in their pajamas and they said he's too young to stay on the men's side in case some pervert wants to do whatever," [the boy's father] said.

 And yes, this is Salvation Army policy:

Oh hell YES I'm loving it (it's not you, fuck off McDonalds)

So, I'm sure you've all heard about that Ark Encounter theme park that's been getting set up in Kentucky.  If not, let me give you a real quick primer (no links, because the Friendly Atheist has all this information for you, too, and he has better writers. That, and the AiG hiring site has been taken down, and FA still has screenshots).

• Answers in Genesis decided to make a Noah's Ark theme park (Ark Encounter).  For some reason, they decided to make this in Kentucky.
• In order to get tax credits and breaks for the park, they made it its own, for profit organization.
• Other organizations of the type that they made Ark Encounter have to follow certain laws in order to keep a tax-exempt status.  You know, little things like non-discriminatory hiring practices.
• In order to attempt to do an end-run around these laws, Answers in Genesis is having Ark Encounter outsource its hiring to....Answers in Genesis.  The theory is that since AiG - the non-profit part - is the one doing the actual hiring, they don't have to follow those laws.

Well it seems Kentucky disagrees:

Kentucky has pulled potential tax credits for a proposed Noah’s Ark-based theme park, telling the developer on Wednesday that the plans had evolved from a tourist attraction into a ministry seeking to advance religion.
State tourism officials had given preliminary approval for tax incentives of potentially more than $18 million over 10 years for the Ark Encounter park slated to open in 2016, but later warned the park’s parent company, Answers in Genesis, that it could lose them if it hired only people who believed in the biblical flood.

 All I can say is "it's about goddamned time."  I'm sorry, just what about this project made you think it was anything BUT a religious ministry run by AiG? Quite frankly, you should have resigned the second you gave the approval.  What's amazing is that they promised to not discriminate in hiring when applying for the grants in the first place, and they're now complaining that they're being punished for breaking the agreement. The Modus Operandi of Christian Missionary Organizations, everybody - Try to get special treatment, then scream "PERZEKUTUNZ!" when you're denied it.

An Open Letter to Anita Sarkeesian

Dear Anita Sarkeesian,

      I have almost no respect for you anymore, mostly due to the tweet where you say that sexism against men is impossible (though there are admittedly other factors).  I now have the opportunity to give you the chance to gain my respect back.  How?  It's rather simple:  You will just have to explain to me just how this music video is NOT sexist against men:

Note that I am not talking about the lyrics, here.  I am not talking about the song which displays rage against an ex.  I am talking about the abuse of a male by a group of women that is laughed about.  It is abhorrent.  Why is it acceptable to tie up a man, smear lipstick on his face, forcibly cut his hair, break eggs on his head, cover him in flour, and take a picture of it?

WHAT exactly makes this not sexist against men?  I can guaran-dam-tee that, were the roles reversed and it was a woman being abused by a group of men, you and I would be screaming "THIS IS MYSOGYNY!" from adjacent rooftops.  You and me both would be decrying this video as an abhorrent glorification of abuse of women.  So why does it not work that way when the victim is male?  Why don't you scream "THIS IS MISANDRY!" from the rooftop adjacent to me?  Is it because of the "+ power" part that you think is required?  Well then WHERE IS THE LACK OF POWER?  She's a damned celebrity, this was made in a professional studio, and was shared by a professional promoter.  Is it because it's not a "grand narrative"?  The video I linked to has nearly FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND VIEWS, and it is not the only copy out there!  How is this not some "grand narrative"?  And if it's alright because it's a guy getting abused, doesn't that say something about the culture, which is oh-so important to that "+ power" part of the equation according to the link you yourself provided later on?

Speaking of that link, even it disagrees with you somewhat:

Men are undoubtedly affected by sexism, but because of their privilege they don’t experience it the same way that women do; this difference in experience is acknowledged through the distinction of sexism versus gender-based prejudice.

Now, I know that you're going to try and claim that this falls under that "gender-based prejudice" part, but does it really?   Just because men have a history of being the ones in charge, that somehow softens this action?  Really?  Just because sexism isn't experienced in the same way DOES NOT FUCKING MEAN SEXISM ISN'T HAPPENING.  And even if it does, that does not change the fact that IT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING IN THE GODDAMNED FIRST PLACE.  Institutionalized vs non-institutionalized sexism is a distinction without a difference:  the end result is the same.  So please, explain to me just how this isn't goddamned sexist.

John, Interrupted

First, thank you Bart Ehrman, for your wonderfully titled book Jesus, Interrupted which inspired the title of this blog post.

Note that this post is not about John.  Or the bible.  Other than that my reading of it has been interrupted while reading through John.


What interrupted this, you might ask?
Why, some Darren Wilson grand jury documents.  Goody!  I've heard about how softball they are, and now I get to see it for myself.  Expect a rather large bit of commentary.

Also it seems appropriate to note the creeping amounts of antisemitism and pro-Roman themes going from Mark to Matt to John.

Ken Ham Can't Keep his Propaganda Straight.

Alright, so you all remember the Nye-Ham debate a while back?  Specifically, the parts where Ham bitches about "observational science" and "historical science"?  Well, now he's applying it to climate change (link goes to RawStory article that links to his blog.  I refuse to link directly to that shill).

In his blog, he complains that scientists are using "historical science" to say that humans are the cause of climate change. As you'll recall, he defines this strange "historical science" thing to be "our interpretation of the data as opposed to the data itself" - a definition that directly conflicts with the claim that it is "science" to begin with.  But of course, there's a small problem.

That problem is the actual fucking data.  It's there.  This is not "interpretation": to say that it is is akin to saying that we interpret that the sky is fucking blue.  We are the cause, get over it you Australian slab of pig meat. This is why we call bullshit on your "observational vs. historical" bullshit.


Also, small note regarding CDMTGM:  I will be skipping over Luke to deal with John, and then revisit Luke and Acts together to properly transition to the Epistles.

CDTGM Part 4: Mark

Mark was rather sparse on the moral teachings.  It was almost exclusively Jesus healing people and telling them not to tell anyone (and of course they blab anyway).  What moral teachings it has are simply repeats, same with Jesus' actions (though it would be more accurate to say that Matt is repeating Mark).  We have a retelling of the fig tree - this time explicitly out of season - a retelling of the Legion cast-out - this time explicitly giving the pigs an owner - a restatement of the anti-divorce decree, a repeat of the racist comparison to dogs, this time with a Roman and not a Samaritan, and a reaffirmation that Jesus is using parables to deceive.

It was rather disappointing.  I expected this of John, not Mark.  Then again, the Jesus of John won't shut the hell up, so I suppose that one will work...

Next up will be Luke.  I will not include Acts, despite it being the sequel.  I want to do Jesus first, then deal with Paul and the Disciples.

CDTGM Part 3: Matthew

Apologies for this one.  It's late because (1) It's absolutely fucking stunning how much bad shit is in the Sermon on the Mount - said to be one of the most moral parts of the damn Bible, and (2) writer's block.  Anyway, let's get right into it, starting with the part that I made a tiny post about, and extrapolate more from it.

A Strange Thought for you next Whenever 1

This may or may not become a semi-regular thing here, but here's a strange thought for you:  I can prove that you are more powerful than God is supposed to be.

Wait, what?

Exactly.  Now hold on a minute.

God can create collections of mass that we call "rocks", yes?  Commonly, when asked that if god can create  a collection of matter (called "a rock" in the scenario) so heavy he can't lift it, the answer is usually "No, that's logically impossible."

Now, I will grant that I cannot create a rock, but is that your final answer?  That god cannot create a collection of matter that he himself cannot lift?  That such a task is logically impossible.

Because if that is your final answer, not only am I more powerful than your god, I am also apparently able to defy logic.  Because I (and you) can create collections of matter so heavy that I (and you) cannot lift it.

I hate writing sometimes

As the title states, I REALLY hate writing sometimes.   Right now, I can't get what I want to say for part 3 to come out right.  STILL.  But right now that's neither here nor there, cuz I need a favor from you guys.

See, this one European pianist wants the world to forget that he sucked balls during a concert four years ago, so he's suing the Washington Post over a "right to be forgottern" put forth by E.U. courts to make them take down a review that's four years old.  What say we show them how it's done in America , hmm?  That's where you come in.

I need you to spread these two links as far across the internet as you possibly can.  The first one is the original "this guy sucks" artilce, and the other is the "this guy doesn't want us to remember that he sucks" article.  What say we exercise our "right to remember"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/05/AR2010120503272.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/31/pianist-asks-the-washington-post-to-remove-a-concert-review-under-the-e-u-s-right-to-be-forgotten-ruling/?wpmm=AG0003409


Ah, you want a little more detail?  Well, I'll try to summarize the original article, as I've already given you the jist of he other one.  Apparantly, this

Dejan Lazic (This was intentional)

guy had a concert with the Atlanta Symphony where he played a piano rendition of a violin concerto that was, according to the WaPo, "attention-getting, large scale and a little empty."  He then performed another recital that was of similar lackluster performance:  one where he spent too much time with theatrical flair rather than the actual music.

Normally I wouldn't care, but this guy has triggered the Streissand effect, AND is attempting to stifle free speech.  Fuck. Him.

Christianity does not Teach Good Morality Part 3.1

Short and sweet again, because I'm still editing my post for Matthew (I've decided that each gospel gets its own part, because holy shit have you ever read the damn things from a modern morals point of view?), but this deserves special, separate mention.  Open up your bibles - should you have them - to Matthew, specifically chapter 5.  From there, find verse 39.  Read that for me.  Yes, you did read that right.  "Do not resist the one who is evil."  Now, I grant you that the surrounding verses make this seem benign, but notice the implications of all of it, especially when third parties are involved.

The surrounding verses all only talk about evil that is done to you.  Not one word about evil that is done to a third party.  What we have to do is extrapolate what Jesus wants you do to in those cases based on what is given here.  In all of the accompanying verses, Jesus tells you to give the evil one more of what he wants from you.  It is thus implied that he wants you to do the same for third parties.  If someone steals, give them even more money (thus further rewarding their deeds).  If someone murders, either kill another person for them or find them another victim, possibly yourself. Don't - as we would do today - try to, you know...stop them.

Like I said, good morality this ain't.

Christianity does not Teach Good Morality Part 2.5

This one's gonna be short and sweet, since there's not really much to say.  It regards that one Qur'an passage I quoted in the last part.  You know, the one that says "no compulsion in religion"?  Well, some people have a problem with this passage, saying that it says nonbelievers will go to hell and burn and how is that not compulsion?  And you know what?  I'd take that claim more seriously if it weren't being put forth by people who don't say "So believe in Jesus or go burn in hell" in the next damn breath.

Yes, I've heard if from atheists, too, but I hear it the most from christians.  And in truth, one hell I don't believe in is just as persuading as another hell I don't believe in, so there's really no compulsion to me in that phrase.  For now, I stand by my conclusion from before:  the Qur'an is - to my knowledge - more tolerant of other faiths than the Bible:  the Qur'an doesn't have the muslims killing others just because of faith.

"Homo-eduphobia"? More like "You're a Fucking Moron"

Right, so first:  I'm changing the format of my current series "Christianity does not Teach Good Morality" a bit.  The next part will deal strictly with the gospels, and after that I'll go over the next few.  Since the NT is the "focus" of Christianity, I feel I should *really* get in-depth here.
Second, I came across this bit of keyboard diarrhea from some dick named Robert Lopez from "American Stinker Thinker" (link goes to Fark discussion).  I think it also deserves some...attention, so let's get right to it.

Christianity Does Not Teach Good Morality Part 2

Last time, I went over why the very foundation of modern Christianity, by focusing on the fact that Jesus' supposed death and resurrection "atone" for all misdeeds so long as you accept that atonement by repenting before you die, is not good morality.  This time, I wish to focus on the part of the bible I have more experience in:  the Old Testament.  I can already hear the objections of "but Jesus wiped all that away".  I can answer with certainty that, for our purposes, no he didn't.

Christianity Does Not Teach Good Morality Part 1

Alright, I understand that a good few of you are NOT going to like this series, but you're going to have to pay attention to what I say to understand what I mean.  I'm going to go into this in at least three parts:  a general, Christian Theology part (this one), a part specifically focusing on the Old Testament, and one focusing on Jesus and Paul (or at least what is purported to be Paul).  Perhaps I will also do a part on specific, minor sects of Christianity such as Calvinism and Christian Scientists, but for now, let us begin with the two words that (almost) all of Christianity agrees sums up their religion .

Oh he's back again...

So Eugene Deldouch...I'm sorry, Delgaudio, is back.  And he's going off on that "gay bill of special rights", which is actually called ENDA, again.  That we've already covered here.  Incoming stupid folks:

Impeachment? For THAT??

Oh, hey, lookie:  the Tea Party Douchebags have a new Impeach Obama site, and decided to make an impeach Obama week.  No, really, it's them.  They're using it to help schedule protests.  This is odd enough, but they even have a "list of impeachable offenses" that they think make him worthy of a criminal trial.  Seriously, they think that the things on this list constitute "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"

Let's go over this one by one, shall we?

Ken Ham is a Twit.

Of course, most of you should know this.  But now he's complaining about the fact that atheists now have a TV channel.  Seriously.  He, a very prominent member of a religion that has numerous tv channels.  He is complaining that atheists even get one.  Let's get into his little whinefest, shall we?