Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Triple Threat: Ray and Kirk Fail at Evangelism, Kent Hovind Gets "Squeezed", and the Gay-Hatin' Spirit of Christmas

Celebrity Evangelists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron use their super-special patented intellect-bypassing straight-from-Jesus (who rather ironically discussed and debated the Torah the teachers of the law in his day) evangelism method to bring the Gospel to people who are already Christians. And by "bring the Gospel to" I mean "nag into reluctantly siding with you in the most insignificant issue even remotely related to the culture war".

C. Michael Patton over at Parchment and Pen has a few interesting thoughts on the vid.

The problem is focusing on the trivial sin of saying G-D. Well, let me correct this. He is focusing on listening to someone say G-D, not actually saying it yourself! If that is not straining out a gnat while ignoring the camel, I don’t know what is. Our postmodern culture is smarter than this. Not only can they smell hypocrisy from a mile away, they are on the hunt for it. All this does is serve to confirm the postmodern suspicion that Christians live in a naive world that has no real depth or understanding.

In the end, there are much bigger fish to fry than a faulty folk interpretation of the third commandment. Whether or not one listens to someone say G-D in an entertainment flick is a non-issue. The message of the Gospel is not that God created man, he rebelled by going to a rated “R” movie and was condemned to death, so God sent His Son to pay the penalty for rated “R” movies. Forgive me for being simplistic with such satire, but that is what people are hearing when the focus of peoples rebellion becomes such things.

I would love to see the expressions on Ray and Kirk's faces if they ever sit down to watch Kevin Smith's theological dick-and-fart comedy Dogma.

Kent Hovind (the pastor wannabe-scientist who shows us that Genesis chapter 1 is to be taken literally but Romans 13:5-7 isn't) still in prison for tax-evasion, has been having conversations with God, including this one which I found rather interesting:

Hovind: God, are you squeezing me to get something out of me, get something into me, or get me in a more usable shape?

GOD: All three and more, son. If I told you everything I was doing, your little brain would not be able to handle it all.

I’ve gotten some prayers and writings from you that you didn’t have time for in the free world. I’ve had you read things, watch things, hear things, and experience things that have changed you forever. I can squeeze things into you and out of you at the same time.

I’m getting some oil, fragrance, and juice out of you that is helping nourish, refresh, and bless some of your brothers and sisters in Christ. I’m also using you to convict and convert others who were not My children until they saw you get squeezed like this.

At first I thought he was lying to garner support for his followers to attempt to get him out of prision when Hovind first said God was talking to him in prision, but now I see how wrong I was. Turns out he thinks his cellmate, Bubba, is God.

Fred Clark over at Slacktivist posted something a few weeks ago that brings out the cynic in me this holiday season:

Project Angel Tree is a Good Thing. Or it would be a Good Thing if the people running it would just get out of the way.

The program, part of Charles Colson's Prison Fellowship, collects and distributes Christmas presents for the children of prisoners. This is heartwarming and noncontroversial. It's also a fine example of Matthew 25-style Christianity in action: "I was in prison and you came to visit me." What's not to like?

Well, it turns out there's a problem. The folks at Prison Fellowship want to help these little kids at Christmas, but not quite as much as they want to spread the Gay-Hatin' Gospel.

Trent W. alerted me to this story via e-mail. It seems the Friends Congregational Church of College Station, Texas, is no longer allowed to collect Christmas presents for the children of prisoners. The United Church of Christ congregation had been supporting Angel Tree for 10 years before they were told this fall that their help was no longer wanted.

Initially Friends Congregational was told that this was because they were in conflict with Prison Fellowship's "Statement of Faith." Had that been true, it would have been strange enough. After all, you're not required to swear the Marine Corps Oath before your donation will be accepted by Toys for Tots. But it turns out that wasn't the real problem.

The real problem, as this letter from the church to Prison Fellowship (.pdf) explains, was that Friends Congregational doesn't hate gay people enough.


The letter goes on to pose three questions for the straight and extremely narrow ministry:
  1. To the child whose parent is in prison, does it matter who is providing him or her with gifts at Christmas?
  2. Is God displeased that a gay man or woman goes Christmas shopping for a child orphaned by society, or is God overjoyed that a child such as this is receiving love mirrored after God's love: expecting nothing in return?
  3. Finally, at the end of the day, does it really help or does it hinder the mission of Angel Tree Ministry to disqualify churches like ours on the basis of an anonymous giver being, as you suggest, deviant from Scripture? If you feel that it helps, then we are sad to say that you have your work cut out for you, because all of us sinners who breathe God’s good air deviate from Scripture every day. This includes everyone from our congregation to the well-intentioned members of the Prison Fellowship Board.

May the Lord bless all you lukewarm Christians and unclean godless sodomites this holiday season.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

EMB: The Erotic Adventures of Forrest Gump

For those of you who have not seen the movie Forrest Gump, the following contains spoilers. Just thought you'd like to know.

Every Man's Battle: ch 3, pp 21-22

Once again we step into the warped psyche of Fred Stoker as he warns us about falling into "sensual pits".

These pitfalls happen easily since much of the sexual immorality in our society is so subtle we sometimes don't recognize it for what it is.

Thank God you're here, Fred. Whatever would we do without you.

One day a fellow named Mike was telling me about renting the video Forrest Gump. "Boy, it was great!" he exclaimed. "Tom Hanks was brilliant. I laughed and cried all the way through it. I know you and Brenda rent good movies for your kids. You should get this one. It was really clean and wholesome."

"No, we won't be bringing Forrest Gump into our living room," I responded.

Taken aback, Mike asked, "Why? It was a great movie!"

"Well, do you remember that scene in the beginning where Sally Field has sex with the principal to get her son into the 'right' school?"


I like how Fred writes the "Uh..." even though we regularly insert "uh"s and "um"s in our speech, but we don't give it much thought. This gives off the illusion of Fred actually "pwning" someone.

"And how about the bare breasts at the New Year's party? The nude on-stage guitar performance? And in the end, when Forrest finally 'got the girl' in the sex scene, she conceived a child out of wedlock. These aren't the kind of things I want my kids to see!"

I partially agree with Fred here (and it makes me nauseous), Forrest Gump is not for the littlest bittiest babies. I also partially agree with Fred Stoker that water is wet and grass is green. I also find it odd that Stoeker would have preferred it if Forrest and Jenny had used protection that night, since he seems to emphasize the "conceived" here.

Mike slumped into a chair. "I guess I've been watching movies for so long I didn't even notice those things."

Are you noticing? Think about it. Suppose you drop your kids at Grandma's for the weekend and decide to watch Forrest Gump with your wife. You rent the video, pop some corn, put your arm around your wife, and hit "play". After much laughter and tears, you both agree that Forrest Gump is a great movie.

But you got more than entertainment, didn't you? Remember the grunting and panting between Sally Field and his principal? And how, when Sally Field next appeared onscreen, you briefly looked her up and down and wondered what it might be like to have her under the sheets? You had your arm around your wife while thinking it. Then later, after you retired to bed for a "bit of sport" with your wife, you replaced your wife's face with Sally Field's, and you wondered why she couldn't make you grunt and pant like the principal.

I wanted to find out if what Stoeker was saying about the movie Forrest Gump was true, so I rented the DVD a few nights back. This is my response to Fred's diatribe:

  1. Forrest Gump is rated PG-13.
  2. To all my heterosexual male readers: You see that picture on the right? That is Sally Field as she appears in the movie right before her character sleeps with the principal (and keep in mind this is the least amount of clothing she ever wears in the entire movie). It doin' anything for ya? Now, usually when I say that James Dobson and his followers masturbate to things like Leave it to Beaver, I usually mean it in a metaphorical sense. But man, Stoeker is into some a freaky shit. Of all the movies and scenes Sally Field has ever been in, he chooses this one as an example of a film inducing "lust".
  3. That "sex-scene" with the principal. You don't see it. You see Forrest sitting on the tree-swing outside his house while you hear the principal make a bunch of wheezing nosies (sounds like a monkey having an asthma attack). Afterwards we don't even see Mrs. Gump in the actual bed (the scene ends with the Principal exiting the house and talking to Forrest on the porch). So apparently Stoeker must also find the ape-like orgasmic wheezing of a fifty year-old man to be boner-inducing.
  4. In the guitar scene Jenny is naked, but she's on a stool. The guitar she's holding is huge, and covers pretty much everything from the front. I'm no film-student or anything, but I think the nudity is supposed to symbolize her vulnerability. This scene is supposed to induce a few emotions in the viewers of the film, but I don't think unbridled animal lust is supposed to be one of them. I also find it ironic that in the movie, Jenny gets kicked out of the girl's college because the people running the school were concerned about her magazine photo-shoot related "impurity" tainting the good name of the school, which resulted in her working at the nudie-bar in order to support herself. From Fred's reaction to this I can take it that he has a thing for weak women. He is a Promise-Keeper after all.
  5. The scene where Forrest "got the girl", he didn't. Jenny leaves him because she feels that a "dirty" woman like her doesn't deserve Forrest. The scene where Forrest "gets the girl" is when Jenny invites Forrest to her apartment, introduces him to his son, tells him she's sick, and asks Forrest to marry her.
  6. About the character of Jenny in the movie teaching the wrong kind of "values", let me get one thing clear: Both the author of the novel "Forrest Gump" and the creators of the movie never intended to present the character of Jenny as a woman who always makes the right decisions. It appears to me that, in Fred's eyes, since a "dirty" woman like Jenny is presented as a sympathetic character in this film (and not vilified), she is being held up as a role model in the narrative (and therefore the film "endorses" sinful behavior). This fits in with the Maddona/Whore dichotomy present throughout Fred and Steve's worldview that we will be seeing more of in later chapters.
Seriously man, Forrest Gump is one of the few movies I can watch that can actually make me, for a brief period of time, forget I'm a cynic. The only time I can hear the song "Sweet Home Alabama" and not want to stab anyone is when it plays in that movie. Reading Fred's complaints about Forrest Gump makes me want to take Fred Stoeker to an abandoned movie-theater, duct-tape him to a seat, and make him sit through a Kevin Smith movie-marathon; Clockwork Orange-style. First Clerks, then Mallrats, followed by Chasing Amy, Dogma, Clerks 2, and ending with Chasing Amy being played once again (but no Jersey Girl. That would just be cruel and inhuman). But, like it or not, Fred is my "brother in Christ" and I gotta respect his own personal purity code like it says to in Romans 14. I just wish he would extend the same courtesy to others.

"Come on," you reply, "This stuff happens all the time."

Wai-wai-wait! I said what?

Actually, what I was going to say was that a) I'm not married, and b) maybe you shouldn't define a sex-addict as "someone who doesn't have a life-consuming obsession with sex" and c) You are projecting your own hangups onto others, you are in no position to ethically provide others with proper sexual-addiction counseling, and YOU NEED PROFESSIONAL HELP!

And Freddy, since you've felt the freedom to put words in my mouth (as well as the mouths of whoever happens to read the book) allow me to return the favor:
I proceeded to offer Mike's children candy to enter my white, unmarked van. "I'm going to teach you kids something that was taught to me by James Dobson at a Promise Keepers convention I attended." I told them, reaching for my belt-buckle.

Recently I've gotten my hands on a copy of Dr Anne Wilson Schaeff's Escape from Intimacy: Untangling the "Love" Addictions: Sex, Romance, Relationships and I must say that I find it a better book for understanding sex-addiction than Every Man's Battle for reasons that include, among others: that it is by a REAL DOCTOR, contains a bibliography, and its author isn't trying to sell anyone action-adventure novels and Music CDs. But another significant reason is how the book "talks" to the reader.

When Shaef writes about the actions of sex addicts, she will write like this (from pg 34):

The Sexual addiction process will use others' addictions (such as romance and relationship addictions) to meet its needs; I do not find that process is really looking for intimacy. In fact, I believe that sexual addiction is a way of actively avoiding nurturance and intimacy. Sexual addicts use relationships to get their fix. They are not really interested in love, romance, or relationships; however, frequently, if they pretend they are, they stand a better chance of getting their sexual "fix" under culturally approved circumstances.

This basically says to the reader: "This is what a sex-addict does. If you do this you may be a sex-addict and should get help." Now look at what Fred wrote:

But you got more than entertainment, didn't you? Remember the grunting and panting between Sally Field and his principal? And how, when Sally Field next appeared onscreen, you briefly looked her up and down and wondered what it might be like to have her under the sheets? You had your arm around your wife while thinking it. Then later, after you retired to bed for a "bit of sport" with your wife, you replaced your wife's face with Sally Field's, and you wondered why she couldn't make you grunt and pant like the principal.
(Emphasis mine).

So here Fred is saying to the reader roughly something along the lines of: "YOU'RE A SICK, HORRIBLE SEX-ADDICT for watching Forrest Gump and doing all these bad things I imagined you doing, Person-Who-I've-Never-Met-Before. So if you want to stop being a FILTHY, SICK, DISGUSTING PERVERT that obsesses over sex in movies, you should start obsessing over sex in movies like I do."

The way Fred writes is at times accusatory, the intent being most likely to induce feelings of guilt in the reader and yet simultaneously (as we will go more into next installment) feelings of victimhood. When Fred does this he seems to be projecting his own hangups onto the reader (and automatically assumes they are all married men as well).

In my opinion, Fred doing this could be quite harmful to actual sex-addicts addicts as it inspires in the addict a feelings of powerlessness and a lack of self-worth, which can prevent people (not just men, people) from owning their addiction and getting the proper (i.e: no product discount club-card) help they need. But then again I have no credentials, so I'm just as qualified to give advice as Fred.

EDIT: Dec: 13, 2007.

Just something to add to that last bit. I've been reading more of Escaping Intimacy as well as Dr Patrick Carnes' Out of Shadows: Understanding Sexual Addiction and I just gotta correct myself. Addicts by definition are in a way powerless to control their behavior. But there is still a problem with Fred's rhetoric above besides the obvious projection. On pages 38-40 of Out of Shadows Carnes describes the level-one sex-addict with a compulsive masturbation problem. Unlike Arterburn and Stoeker, Carnes actually beleives that masturbation can be a healthy thing (score another point for Team Sanity) but he also beleives it, like all good things, can be twisted in self-destructive ways:

For the addict however, masturbation becomes a degrading event. Masturbating four to five times a day for years on end becomes a secret life. It is the central part of every day. At the least the feeling of frustration or loneliness, the addict struggles to find a private place to masturbate. Unlocking the office door, walking out of the bathroom, or driving in the car, addicts are certain no one else is as obsessed as they are.

Part of that certainty comes from the collection of judgments and beliefs they hold to be true about masturbation. Messages from parents, family and church have left no doubt that it is a character flaw. As a result addicts may carry some equation in your head: Masturbation equals failure. Masturbation equals a loss of manhood. Masturbation is not feminine. Masturbation equals punishment.

One addict tells a story about his Catholic upbringing. Each Saturday, his father would ask if the boy had to go to confession. Since masturbation was a sin, both by and father knew what had to be confessed. The father would talk to the boy about how he would become a man when he conquered his urges. The boy would sit in his shame, he dreaded Saturdays.

It later turned out that the father was simply telling his own belief, his own myth, to the boy. The father was a compulsive masturbator who believed his problem was simply a lack of self-control. In his desperation to prevent the same pain for his son, the father relayed the myth that locked him into his own addiction. (The same ideal of manliness that added to the father's shame was passed on to his son.) Paradoxically, he recreated the same addictive system for his son out of love. As addicts go, this is a common story.

The son translated the message in a particularly damaging way. He felt that God would punish him for his masturbation. In fact, he believed that nothing would go right for him for the twenty-four hours following each time he masturbated. Given the power of his expectations and his daily masturbation, his life was an unending cycle of failure and disappointment. His compulsive masturbating was central to the self-fulfilling prophecy of God's punishment.
(emphasis mine)

That's the weird thing about Fred and Steve's ministry, it is not so much a way as to help sex-addicts as it is to make sex-addicts. Something we will be exploring in later entries.

So I apologize for my earlier error with regards to addiciton and powerlessness and remind the reader that these bloggings are not intended as therapy (except for me as a way of expressing my anger at how irresponsible Fred and Steve are) or counselling materials.


But some of you* out there may be saying "But Cynic, there are sexual images all around us, like magazine covers, sensual music videos, women with breasts right in front of their bodies, classic cars, asthmatic monkeys at the zoo, flowers that look like vaginas when you squint at them, and lumpy mashed potatoes that that remind you of "lady-lumps" from the hit single My Humps which in turn reminds you of the Black-Eyed Peas causing you to fantasize about Fergie wearing a skin-tight veterinarian's outfit while holding a miniature banana-shaped inhaler. All of these can lead to us to giving into our throbbing biological urges in the wrong way; resulting in us engaging in carnal relations with our own cousins and siblings, ending up with more Bestselling Christian Self-help book authors being born. Doesn't Fred have a point when he says that sensuality is everywhere?" To which I say yes, but something that concerns me more is the unhealthy obsession that "Pure-minded" individuals like Stoeker&Co. have with it.

While reading Dr. Schaef's book, I came across the case-study of Molly, a sex-addict, but not in the way you'd think. (pg 16):

Molly is obsessed with sex. She thinks about sex constantly. She finds it filthy, disgusting, dirty and repulsive. Much of her time is focused on how to avoid sex with her husband.


Whenever men approach her in any way, she sexualizes the interaction and is sure they only want one thing. Molly is afraid of men, afraid of sex, and terrified of her own sexuality. Formerly, we may have called her frigid. Unfortunately, like many of our psychological conceptualizations, the concept of frigid did not take in the element of addiction.

And the case of a Father Aloysius, a Catholic priest that had two sexual affairs with women** (pg 23):

Father Aloysius had made a decision to be celibate and then tried to force his body into compliance. Hence, his life was dominated by the constant struggle to remain celibate, and he was obsessed with sexual fantasies that, he felt, were warring against his celibacy. Much of his life was spent obsessively thinking about this problem and trying to control his sexual feelings. When I met him, it was clear he was living a life of obsession and torment. His "struggle" over his sexuality was occupying much of his waking hours as well as his dream life. Father Aloysius had become a sexual addict. His life had become dominated by his sexual feelings. When I first met him, he was depressed and feeling hopeless. He was fearful of maintaining his celibacy and totally at the service of the struggle. Whatever was going on with his sexuality was the center of his day. He had crossed the line from fantasy to addiction. Instead of having resolved the "struggle" in a way that worked for him, he had become obsessed with it.

On pages 33-34 of Escaping Intimacy, Dr Schaef gives us information on levels of sexual addiction. This list in very simmilar to Dr Patrick Carnes's list in his book Out of Shadows (more on that in later chapters). However, the most visible change is Schaef's addition of a new level:

Level One, repressive sexual addiction, includes persons who are obsessed with repressing sexuality - their own and others - and are totally preoccupied with sex. Included here are such characteristics as frigidity, impotence, sexual righteousness, obsessive sexual purity, nonintegrated celibacy, religious sexual obsession, sexual anorexia, and treating of others as sexual objects.*** All of these are forms of sexual addiction and can be just as destructive to the individual and society as is sexual acting out.

We will touch back on these later, but it is important to keep this in mind. One thing I recommend doing is if you ever get your hands on both Every Man's Battle (or one of its age/marital-status/gender/blood-type/eye-color/ice-cream flavor preference-specific editions) and Dr. Schaef's Escaping Intimacy, read them side-by-side. It will scare the crap out of you.

Could be, but listen to these troubling words from Jesus: "I tell you that anyone who looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:25).

In light if this scripture, piddling things like objecting to Forrest Gump may not be minor legalistic meddling.

Actually, it still is. The trouble is that you get your definition of "lust" from the back of a porno DVD. According to Countryman the word translated as "lust" there (epithymeō) is used in the Septuagint's translation of the tenth commandment. Covetousness, looking at what is not yours with a sense of entitlement, is the essence of adultery. And even if the word is being used in the sense of mere sexual feelings, the passage is followed by this:

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Jesus here is using hyperbole to illustrate the seriousness of the sin, he isn't condemning sexual desire any more than he is requiring mutilation to enter paradise.

If you have trouble with watching Forrest Gump, then don't watch Forrest Gump. And if you can't watch Forrest Gump without obsessively focusing on the sex at expense to everything else in the movie, you're the one with the problem and not your buddy Mike.

Such subtle influences, added to hundreds of others over time, provide more than a hint of sexual immorality in our lives. Soon, the effect isn't so subtle anymore and not so fun.

As Mama always used to say: "Sexually Immoral is as Sexually Immoral does."


*I have an excuse for addressing my readers directly: I'm a blogger. The purpose of this blog is not therapy, but mockery; satire, if you will. And note how I used the word "some".

**Am I supposed to feel this sense of relief when hearing about Catholic priests having sex with women?

***Interesting thing I came across on the blogosphere were some responses by feminist bloggers Kyso Kisaen and Jill Filipovic to Fred Stoeker's take on the Rebelution Modesty Survey. For those of you who do not know what the Rebelution Modesty Survey is, allow me to explain: It's some weird kind of Bizarro-Universe cybersex site where perverts, instead of telling women (who they have never met and will most-likely never encounter IRL) to take their clothes off, tell women (who they have never met and will most-likely never encounter IRL) to put clothes on; thus allowing themselves to live the illusion that they are Noble White-Knights concerned with honoring women when they have just reduced their Sisters in Christ to the status of asexual cam-whores (like shoe-on-head, but more sad than funny). Some of these guys even think they are being Christlike when judging women by the clothes they wear.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

"Now I Ain't Saying ADF Lawyers Are a Huge Disgrace/ but They're Worse Than the Ones Who Ambulance-Chase/"

Hat's off to Jesus' General for bringing this to my attention: The James Dobson-founded Alliance Defense Fund fights in court to defend a boy's right to have his mother dress him funny:

Pennsylvania School Says Devils and Witches Are OK, But Jesus Has to Go...

Sometimes a story occurs that illustrates how much of a toll the attacks by the ACLU and its allies have taken on Our First Liberty – religious freedom.

Yes, that's what the ACLU does, fight to take away people's freedoms.

The Abington School District (in Philadelphia) -- ironically the same school district that was a party in the 1963 Supreme Court decision, Abington Township v. Schempp which invalidated any school-sponsored devotional study of the Bible in public schools – didn't stop having a district-wide celebration of Halloween

Yeah, what is up with that? After all, All Hallow's Eve (the eve of All Saint's Day) has been a recognized a Christian holiday since Pope Gregory IV (although it has been recognized as a secular holiday since the invention of candy corn).

Officials at one school, Willow Hill Elementary, required that students wear a costume at school on Halloween if they wanted to participate in the festivities. For one ten-year-old that created a quandary. He and his mother weren't comfortable promoting Halloween and its pagan elements, but he didn't want to be sequestered from the event.

"Halloween and its pagan elements"? What a load. I'll have you know that crass-commercialization is just as Christian as frivolous lawsuits, political lobbying, and that thing about the guy who died on a lower-case letter "t" (I can't really recall that much about it at the moment, but I remember him doing something important. Not as important as stopping gay-marriage, mind you, but pretty darn close).

So, instead of dressing up like a devil or a witch, like other students did, he chose to come dressed as...

He chose to come dressed as what? A doctor? A knight? A hobo? Spiderman? Batman? Robin? Nightwing? A giant hamburger? A slice of pizza? Wolverine? Elvis? Black Panther? Abraham Lincoln? Sonic the Hedgehog? Darkwing Duck? A reporter? The Pink Panther? Magnum P.I.? Mickey Mouse? Donald Duck? Goofy? A Cowboy? Megaman? Protoman? The Flash? Napoleon Dynamite? Goku? Optimus Prime? A Dinosaur? Ronald McDonald? The Kool-Aid Man?A Fireman? Mario? Luigi? Sherlock Holmes? A Power-Ranger? Kermit the Frog? A Pokemon? Green Lantern? The Green Arrow? The Green Hornet? Kato? Chewbacca? Big-Bird? A Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtle? Luke Cage? Charlie Brown? Kanye West? Barry Bonds? The Incredible Hulk? The front-end of a horse? The rear-end of a horse? A clog in the American legal system that keeps more serious cases from ever seeing the light of day?


Wow, I was right. Kanye West it is.

He met the requirement of dressing up in a costume, while not promoting beliefs contrary to his faith.

Like how he avoided promoting Satanism by not dressing up as Satan, how he avoided promoting masked-vigilantism by not dressing up as Batman, and how he avoided promoting the belief that cars turn into robots by not dressing up as Optimus Prime. And let's not forget how, by refusing to dress up as Sonic the Hedgehog, he avoiding promoting the satanic lie that "there's nothing cooler than being hugged by someone you like..."

The student was told that his costume violated the school's unwritten "religion" policy. School officials told his mother that the costume would be OK, if he removed his crown of thorns and didn't identify himself as Jesus, but as a Roman emperor instead (and perhaps missing the irony that the Romans were persecutors of Christians and that crucifixion was the emperor's ultimate method of execution!).

So a kid having to wear a different costume than what his mom made for him as an outward display of perceived-persecution-inducing piety to school is like the Roman Empire's persecution of Christ and his early followers?

Wait... Did you hear that sound? It sounded like our precious Lord and all the martyred saints at his right hand throwing-up all at once.

ADF legal counsel Matt Bowman has filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, alleging that the school district engaged in "viewpoint discrimination" when it censored the young man's costume. A copy of the complaint can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/EDTComplaint.pdf.

"For the school principal to censor this young student because he was dressed as Jesus is patently ridiculous," said Matt. "It's just another demonstration of how hostile to Christianity some public school officials have become. It is unconstitutional to single out Christian students in this way for censorship."

I actually agree with this part. It is stupid to keep a kid from coming to school dressed up as Jesus for Halloween. He should enjoy it while he can. Because from the look of things he'll most-likely drop his faith like a hot-potato when he reaches high-school and one of his friends will show him one of those crappy "New-Atheism" books with titles like "Up Yours, Lord: Why God is a Non-Existant Doody-Head and How Not Being an Obnoxious and Alarmist Atheist Will Result in You and All You Love Being Molested By Pedophile Priests, Gang-Raped by the Republican Party, and Blown Up by Bearded Men Desperate for 72 Un-Tapped Asses (or Raisins, the Translation is a Little Iffy)!" and discovers that he can masturbate guilt-free. Then if his old costume still fits him that October, he can dress up as Jesus once again, but this time with the ADF not exactly being as supportive.

Now for all you parents out there who also want to either whore out your kids' childhoods to justify your own personal martyr-complex, or want to make attending your spouse's friend's Halloween party even more awkward, I present to you Tools For Tools (of Christ): Halloween Edition (wardrobe provided by Annie's Costumes.com):

Jesus Costume

Includes: Long sleeved knee length dark brown gown and rope belt. Available in One Size (fits up to jacket size 44).

Sells for $43.95.

I change my mind, I think I'll go as Friar Tuck instead.

Moses Wig & Beard Set:

Sells for $29.95.

Leprosy not included.

Joseph/Moses Costume
(Note: colors may vary)

Includes: Long sleeved full bodied under gown with knee length sleeveless over robe. Available in One Size (fits up to jacket size 44).

Sells for $69.95.

Mary Costume

Includes: White floor length dress with flared sleeves and light blue head shawl. Available in One Size (fits up to dress size 12).

Sells for $59.95.

Once again scholars dispute Christ's lineage. Is Jesus descended from Joseph or Moses? However, the case for the Virgin Birth is strengthened:

"See, I have a wife and kid, that makes me completely heterosexual."

"He's not yours, Joseph."

"Completely heterosexual. Dr Nicolosi says so."



Also remarkable how back then animal feeding trofts very much resembled cribs.

Shepherd Costume

Includes: Off-white under robe, royal blue overcoat and rope belt. Available in One Size (fits up to jacket size 42).

Sells for $29.95

That man is no longer a shepherd. His anger at the death of his sheep-herding comrades has unlocked his true power. He has finally become, a SUPER-SHEPHERD!

Shepherd #3 Costume
(Note: colors may vary)

Includes: Floor length robe, knee length vest, white mantle with black headband and rope belt. Available in One Size (fits up to jacket size 44).

Sells for $79.95

"Hey Annie? What do you want us to do with all these old 'Bloodthirsty Arab Sheik'-costumes we can't sell anymore on account of them being too offensive?"

Blue Wiseman Costume

Includes: Blue panne velvet robe w/ silver lamé trim, matching hat and silver lamé belt. Available in One Size (fits up to jacket size 42).

Sells for $29.95.

What can I say, following stars across deserts will do that to you.

Purple Wiseman Costume

Includes: Purple robe w/ gold lamé trim, matching headpiece and gold lamé belt. Available in One Size (fits up to jacket size 42).

Sells for $29.95.

Let me guess, this is the one who brought the myrrh.

Gladiator, Fighter to Death Costume

Includes: Black polyester shirt, black cape, armor skirt, gold & silver helmet,
chest and shoulder armor and decorated shin and wrist guards.
Available in One Size Standard (fits up to jacket size 46).

Regularly: $59.95. On Sale for: $47.95.


Crown of Thorns:
An adjustable crown of brown flexible plastic 4 yards in length. Can be wrapped to fit any size head. Sells for $10.95.

Latex Whip & Spike Scar Sheet:
Includes: 6 assorted length latex whip scars, varying from 6" to 17". Also included are 6 nail scars for the hands. Both type of scars are very realistic. Sells for $11.95.

Stage Blood:
Many feature films have used Ben Nye's blood exclusively. Realistic qualities include vivid coloring and Medium flowing viscosity. Peppermint flavored and safe in mouth. May stain some fabrics and surfaces; test before use. Applications: 12-30 per ounce. Available in .5oz., 1oz., 2oz., 4oz., 8oz., 16oz., and 32oz. sizes.

Thank you, Mel Gibson, for reminding us that Jesus is the Reason for the Season.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Four Fingers...

Slacktivist hits the bulls-eye about modern-day Evangelicalism's obsession with homosexuals:

"No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to us all," St. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:13.

If you're a preacher, and if you possess the slightest bit of self-awareness, that's problematic. It means that preaching against any temptation or sin implicates your entire congregation and yourself as well. That can be really uncomfortable for all involved. Pick any of the seven deadlies or the 10 commandments and you risk alienating everyone in the pews and exposing yourself as less than perfect. Awwwk--waaard.

But lately, many American evangelical preachers think they have found a loophole: Homosexuality. Here is a temptation that does not seem to be common to us all. It seems to be the perfect "sin"* -- the perfect safe target. Straight preachers can rail against it without worrying about exposing themselves as hypocrites or, even worse, as fallible humans just like everyone else. And statistically speaking, most of the congregation will be able to say "Amen" without squirming or feeling the least discomfort. It's all win.

Can't wait for part two.

EDIT: Here's part two.

Monday, October 15, 2007

EMB: One...Two... Freddy's Coming for You...

Before I get started, I just want to show you a critical review of Every Young Man's Battle done way back in 2005 by Amber Rhea. Here's quick snippet from when Fred & Steve talk to a teenage girl:

I remember the time when a guy I really liked tried some things that made me uncomfortable. I asked him to stop, but he persisted. Finally, he just wore me down and I eventually gave in. He had weakened my defenses.

Okay, this is the kind of shit that seriously upsets me. Cassie, I've got news for you, hon: that wasn't "weaking your defenses," that was rape. And what is most disturbing is that the chapter just continues along, with some stale verbiage about how it's not manly to push your girlfriend's sexual boundaries. They had an opportunity to take a real stand here, and say, "Hey, fuckface, when you 'push your girlfriend's sexual boundaries,' you're committing rape, and you should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. You're a goddamn rapist, you cowardly little shit." But they didn't.

Scary shit, man. Scary shit. Thumbs up for Amber.

Every Man's Battle:
ch2, pg 16-20

Fred tells us he attended a marriage class taught by a Joel Budd.

It wasn't long before I realized that I knew nothing about treating women properly. Perhaps it was because my mom and dad were divorced, and I never saw a loving relationship modeled at home. More likely, however, it was because of my own selfishness and sexual sin. Everything I knew about women came from one-night stands and casual dating relationships.

The criticism of one-night stands I understand. But "casual dating relationships"? What's wrong with dating? I mean that's what Archie does with Betty at Pop Tate's Choklit-shop.

And here's the grabber: Fred Stoeker still doesn't know how to treat women properly. You see, Freddy here is a member of Promise Keepers, and he wrote a book that says... well, let me just let mental health counselor Susan Hall explain in her article "The Theology of Domestic Violence" where she mentions Arterburn & Stoeker's other book: Every Woman's Desire* (aka Every Man's Marriage):

Colluding with the socialization I’ve described above is the general culture of much of Christianity, where men have not only the cultural right but also the mandate to practice sexist power differentials that promote the creation of the docile, submissive, and dependent woman described as “ideal” by clergy. In a survey I did of evangelical self-help literature, I found peppered throughout the texts metaphors, language, and analogies of hierarchy, domination, and subordination. One popular men’s book [Every Woman's Desire] uses a master and bondservant analogy, and, although the authors are asking the man to consider his wife his “master,” it is nonetheless problematic because it normalizes relationships built on power differentials rather than on mutuality. The authors’ analogy breaks down anyway when they later reaffirm that men are the “Chief Tiebreakers” in the family, once again justifying male dominance within the Christian home.

This is far from an isolated case. In their fervor for “male headship,” evangelicals all over the United States are buying books that purport to make men stronger and more spiritual than their wives. The Silver Medallion Award–winning text mentioned above advises men in the way of becoming the spiritual leader of the family, directing men to “develop the deepest knowledge of God’s Word,” “become the best at submitting to Scripture,” “be the most comfortable with worshiping at home,” “be the most consistent in your prayer and devotional life,” and “be the quickest in the family to forgive and ask for forgiveness”9 (emphasis mine). The message is clear: A man is to note his wife’s capabilities and competencies and then outstrip her in every arena if he is to provide leadership in the home.

This model, with its requisite winner and loser, creates an environment in evangelical homes where women are set up for the humiliation of being one-down. Because women are discouraged from outshining their husbands, they often go undercover when they are more knowledgeable or passionate about Scripture or spirituality. And when a man cannot become one-up by his competence or so-called spirituality, he often becomes violent in order to establish his dominance. If a female is not inferior to him, his culture claims that he is an inadequate man and leader.10

Anyhoo, back to the book: Fred tells us that he didn't date that year under Joel's teaching. He then began to suffer from a condition I myself have discovered by observing other single Christians and am hoping to one day get published: Matrimorny.

Matrimorny ("matrimony-horny") is a somewhat common condition among single Evangelical Christian men. You see, Holy Sanctified Christian testicles fill themselves with sperm at roughly the same rate as secular godless heathen testicles; but unlike secular godless heathen testicles, Holy Sanctified Christian testicles are only to be drained within marriage or while unconsciously humping one's mattress in the REM sleep stage. Thus the Evangelical Christian man has just as strong a desire to mate as a heathen does, but does not openly admit this as it would cause him to appear less spiritual in the eyes of his brethren. So when speaking about past instances where he has experienced matrimorny he will not say something along the line of "I needed a girlfriend" or "Boy, did I ever need to get laid", he will say something like:

I prayed this simple prayer: "Lord, I've been in this class for a year and learned a lot about women, but I'm not sure I've ever seen these things in real life. I've never really known any Christian girls. Please show me a woman who embodies these godly characteristics."

I wasn't asking for a date, girlfriend, or spouse. I just wanted to see these teachings in practice, in real life, that I might understand them better.

Which is pretty much what Fred Stoeker says in his book. Well, actually it is what he says in the book.

God did far more than that. One week later, He introduced me to my future wife, Brenda, and we fell in love.

"Brenda, this is Fred. Due to his poor exegesis of Matthew 5:27-28, he can't ejaculate without crying, see if you can help him with that. Fred, this is Brenda. Don't worry, Batman is on his way, and he's bringing the antidote with him."

Fred tell us that Brenda and him decide not to do the nasty before the legal contracty. It's their choice, I can respect that.

She was a virgin--and I wished I were.

There's still the butt, Freddie. Or did...? Nevermind. None of my business anyways...

We did kiss, however, and whoa! Our lip smacking was wonderful! It was my first experience of something I would discover far more deeply: the physically gratifying payoff that comes from obedience to God's sexual standards.

"And that's like twice as good as the kind you get from using an Arab-strap."

In a song made popular during my senior year in college, the singer mourned how it used to feel when a kiss was something special. The lyrics from that song resonated sadly with me because, at that point in my life, a kiss meant nothing to me. It was a joyless prerequisite on the path to intercourse.

Now, too all my fellow men out there, take note. If you're writing a quasi-autobiographical book and yet for some weird reason want to present yourself as The World's Worst Lover, be sure to describe a kiss as being a "joyless prerequisite on the path to intercourse". Oh, and be sure to use phrases like "lip-smacking". Seriously, not even Andy from The 40 Year-Old Virgin spoke like this. "Lip-smacking"? What's next, "a bag of sand"?

Fred tells us he spent his early married life living by the three C's: Church, Clean-living, and Corn (he actually lived next to a corn-field, which does somewhat explain the creepiness).

If you want the details on their early relationship, I recommend you read the beginning of Every Man's Marriage (which you can read for free here). Long story short: They met when Fred's step-mom set up him and Brenda on a blind-date (or "blind-courting", whatever it was). Shortly after meeting Brenda in Church, he heard a voice in his head tell him that he will marry her (and actually tells her about it later that day). He marries her seven months after meeting her and is surprised that his marriage has a freaking buttload of problems (which I believe bears a striking similarity to the plot of the latest Farrelly brothers movie). He even lost his temper on their wedding night (perhaps another bad case of "divine intervention", I hear they have pills for that now). Ah Fred, you're a walking Romantic comedy.

Then this pops out at me:

By worldly standards, I was doing great. Just one little problem. By God's standard of sexual purity, I wasn't even close to living his vision for marriage. Clearly I'd taken steps towards purity, but I was learning that God's standards were higher than I'd ever imagined and that my Father had higher hopes for me than I had dreamed.
(Emphasis mine)

I've heard something like this before, but where? Oh well, the important thing is that he grabs on tight to his newfound purity, or Jesus is going to write him a letter detailing his every mistake.

Fred, the good Christian that he is, once again pisses his tears of pompous self-loathing over Christ's sacrifice as he did in chapter one.

People around me disagreed, saying "Oh, come on! Nobody can control their eyes and mind, for heaven's sakes! God loves you! It must be something else." But I knew differently.

My prayer life was feeble. Once my son was sick and had to be rushed to the emergency room. Did I rush into prayer? No, I could only rush others to pray for me... I had no faith in my own prayers because of my sin.

My faith was weak in other ways as well. As a full-commission salesperson, if I lost a number of deals to the competition, I could never be sure if those setbacks weren't somehow caused by my sin. I had no peace.

I was paying a price for my sin.

I don't really know about the prayer, but the sales? This guy suffers from erectile dysfunction, it's divine intervention ("That's never happened to me before, I'm so virile"); he loses a sale at work, it's divine intervention ("It's not like I lost the sale"). He acts as if his "sexual immorality" is his only flaw/weakness.

My marriage was suffering as well. Because of my sin, I couldn't commit 100 percent to Brenda out of fear that she might dump me later. That cost Brenda in closeness. But that's not all. Brenda told me she was experiencing dreams in which she was being chased by Satan. Was my immorality causing spiritual protection to be taken away from her?

My Wife was paying a price.

Wait wait wait! Brenda is the "pure" one right? The one who doesn't struggle with "impurity"? Why is she being punished by God allowing her to experience these horrible late night pizza-induced demonic attacks? How exactly does Fred provide "spiritual protection" for his household? Why does Brenda even think he needs him in this way? Is Fred's penis shaped like a cross? does he have a Cruci-dick?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's anything in the Bible about the husband's "purity" protecting his Christian wife from demons.

"Fred, this is God again. There's something I forgot to tell you about Brenda. Her favorite movie is Nightmare on Elm Street, which she believes is a docu-drama."

Another interesting thing is that in Preparing Your Son (pg 177) he writes about "the laws of sowing and reaping" (actions and consequences):

Sometimes we think our poor crop is a direct punishment from God. But God isn't looking for a chance to nail us. When we sin sexually, God doesn't jump from his throne in a rage and bellow, "Okay, now you've done it! I'm going to give you an addiction you'll never squirm out of!"

No, in most cases He doesn't do anything to punish us at all... When problems crop up for us, they usually grew naturally from our own choices.
(emphasis mine)

Wow, Fred kinda pulled a 360 there, eh.

Some more blah blah blah-ing on how his church was suffering because he couldn't serve in it because of his sexual sin. blah blah blah ad inserts blah blah blah female joggers...

Every week I'd vow to to avoid watching R-rated "sexy" movies when I traveled, but every week I'd fail, sweating out tough battles and always losing.

"And in these movies they would say things like 'I'm going to have lots of sexy sex with you.' and she says 'Me so horny, me love you long time!' and then he's nailing her and she's like 'Augh! You're nailing me. Cool.'"

What's even funnier is what qualifies as a "sexy" movie in Fred's eyes. More on that next time. ;)

*I myself have not yet read the tranny of the "Every Man" series, but if what Susan Hall saying about the book is accurate, it causes me to scratch my head. Fred, at least when writing this book, seems to believe that women are immune to porn and sex addictions and don't "struggle" with "impurity" as men do. So he, in this way, could be acknowledging his wife's superiority in this regard. But then again, later in the book we hear quite a bit of bitching from Fred&Co. about wives who selfishly decide to deprive their husbands of gratification for the silliest reasons, like headaches, morning-sickness, and being too busy with a career outside the home.

Friday, September 28, 2007

Double Entry: CSE CopyWrong and the 9/11 Bullshit Movement

Oy! Kent Hovind's Creation Science Evangelism ministries are at it again. This time they've been making false copyright claims in order to get videos that criticize them pulled off of youtube. For more information, check these vids out (courtesy of Thunderf00t):

Here's the letter that goes with that last video:

Dear Sir,
I write to inform you of the abuse of copyright claims by cseministry (Creation Science Ministries).

cseministry (Creation Science Ministries) have been flagging videos as their copyrighted material even though they contain no material whatsoever from cseministry. cseministry was founded by the young earth creationist and public figure, Kent Hovind who is currently serving a 10 year jail sentence for tax fraud. Videos that cseministry have claimed infringed their copyright include phone calls from various scientists to Kent Hovind, Hovinds phone calls from jails where he conspires to hide property from the IRS and completely original satirical animations of the likeness of the public figure Kent Hovind. cseministry are evidently making abusive use of the copyright claims system by making false claims against videos which reflect badly on cseministry or their founder Kent Hovind.
-This is an abuse of the systems that cseministry have been systematically using as a form of 'back door censorship' and needs to be addressed.

Further cseministry have made copyright claims on videos they have previously made. Yet cseministry have previously declared that all material produced by their ministry is public domain material (see video below). Public domain material cannot be copyrighted. Indeed it would appear that it is only within the last week that cseministry have changed their website (drdino.com) to falsely claim they have copyright protection on all the material they have previously put in the public domain (see video below), simply so they can falsely flag videos critical of them on youtube. No-one can claim the copyright for public domain material, not even cseministry.
And even IF cseministry did own the copyright for any of this material, all of the videos they have flagged as infringing their copyright would fall into the category of fair use.

The following video explains the abuse by cseministry

The following is a partial list of accounts that have had videos deleted by false copyright claims by cseministry.
rabidape, johnplex, Acorvettes, EGarrett01, Desertphile, qxdc, Chrisboe4ever, RationalResponse and ExtantDodo

Best wishes

I sent off my letter, what about you?

It appears to be working, a lot of those anti-Hovind videos are making comebacks.

A few weeks ago all around campus I would find flyers like this one (I blacked out the city/town name and phone because I have a bit of an anonymity thing going on here):

For those of you who have trouble reading the text:

--Moment of silence at 7:15 PM--

Film at 7:30 'Loose Change'
Coffee & Snacks - Discussion

Informational exchange - Open mic


Admission by Donation

Who the heck gets a DJ to perform at a memorial service?


I've heard of Loose Change before, so after seeing these flyers all over the place, so I thought I'd check it out on the 'tubes. Needless to say, I wasn't very impressed. David Wong has an excellent piece on the film and its creators (as 9/11 "truthers" would say of Loose Change, it "makes you think").

Another great piece on this is Mark Roberts' Screw Loose Change, which goes through the entire video pointing out the errors and downright falsehoods.

I just can't buy into the idea that the U.S. government killed thousands of people in an immensely complex fashion making it look like something else, yet Dylan Avery and his buds are still alive. I mean, if the government can put a plane into the side of a building, what's to keep them from flying one into some college-dropout's apartment. No, no... a plane would be too big. It would have to be something smaller, like a riding mower.

Detective Blonsky: What happened here?

CSI: It appears a riding-mower crashed into this living room, slashing the inhabitants to ribbons.

Detective Blonsky: Damn! I suspect foul play, but without grainy photos and ominous-sounding music, I'll never be able to prove it.

9/11 is an open shut case for me, but I have my suspicions about another incidence...

(Unfastened Coins video courtesy of Maddox).

Coming soon: Another Every Man's Battle entry.

EDIT 2007/09/29: And how could I have forgotten the famous debunking done by Popular Mechanics.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

If You Love Homophobia So Much, Why Don't You Just Gay-Marry It?

Before we get things started I just want to say to whoever is doing so, please don't spam my comments box. It's annoying, and we have all seen that ytmnd file by now. If you are gonna spam my comments section at least spice things up with a little variety. Like, I dunno, maybe some of those medieval ones, something that's animated, or perhaps you could upload my Samson & Goliath pic to ytmnd.com (uploading yours would be even better). But as for now, on to the show.

College has kept me busy for quite some time, but I have decided to take a break from procrastinating my assignments to once again travel through the series of tubes to write about James Dobson, the Pope of politically participating patriarchal protestants.

Now, for those of you out there who don't know who James Dobson is, let me give you a bit of backstory. James Dobson (judging by the sound of his voice heard over the radio) was conceived in sodomy between John Wayne and Porky Pig. He was later adopted by a Nazarene minister and his wife that were so filled with the love of Christ that they would hit him whenever he used the exclamation "hot-dog". He accepted Jesus into his heart at the age of three, helping him overcome a life-destroying apple-juice addiction. While he was a child he made dogs fight for his own amusement and was beaten by his mother with her own garter-belt; experiencing a childhood that can only be described as one foot in the world of Father Knows Best and the other in that of a Thomas Harris novel. Little Jimmy then went off to Christian College to study psychology, hoping to one day become a Batman villain. He finally became a doctor only to later spit in the face of God by breaking his Hippocratic Oath through promoting the unethical, harmful and pseudoscientific quackery of reparative therapy.

One day, he climbed to the top of a mountain and saw that The Children of Baby-Boomer Evangelicals were being rude and unruly. He descended the mountain carrying a hardcover edition of his famous parenting book Dare to Beat the Shit Out of Your Kids, which he then used to whoop some serious whipper-snapper ass. When the BBEs saw how well behaved and twitching their children had become, they fell to their knees in gratitude and proceeded to suck off the good doctor as if his urethra was a juice-box straw and his gonads were filled with vanilla custard. And that is how Focus on the Family was formed; an organization that provides many services and tools to Evangelical families, like movie reviews that bring attention to the amount of cleavage shown by the Fairy Godmother in Shrek 2.

One day some politicians saw that there were a lot of BBEs and decided that the best way to be popular among the BBEs was to do what they were doing. So they went down on Dobson as well, shouting "HAGH GOARS! LOOG AD USH!" and the BBEs look out of the corners of their eyes and saw what the politicians were doing and said among themselves "LEGDS BOAT FOA DOSE GAISH!" And that was how Dobson, in his own special half-assed yet mad and power-hungry way, became involved in politics. This in turn led to him writing articles like this one, a synopsis of his book Marriage Under Fire. All presented in a neatly summarized, and easy-to-mock, format:

Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage

(This is a synopsis of the new book by Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire.)

Argument #1.

The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.

It would be nice if he could link us this article, because -y'know- many newspapers have web-sites these days. Usually when a newspaper article that supports the his position is mentioned by a web-author on either his blog or a web-page, the author provides the common courtesy of linking to said news-article so the reader would then be able to read it and see if what the author is saying about it is true or not.

It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

"It is predicted now" by who? You? And gay-marriage will cause/has caused (?) this how?

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings.

OH MY GOD! I have three grandparents! We're practically halfway there! And no good Christian man should ever marry a "used" woman with children of her own. Why, he would miss out on that fresh-vagina smell.

Well, at least we know that little Billy is going to get a fair bit of Christmas presents this year.

"Dozens of half-siblings"? How is it that Dobson has a PhD yet somehow is unaware of the use of contraceptives?

It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today).

Yep, gays are responsible for "huge numbers" of unwanted children. They reproduce like jackrabbits, them queers.

Yes, I hear gay marriage is very popular in countries that have a lot of street-children, like India.

All those children in foster-homes and living on the streets. It's a shame there isn't anyone that wants to adopt them. Well, anyone that isn't kept from being able to so by the followers of certain demagogues that misrepresent the scholars they cite (on rare occasions when they actually do cite a source instead of crying wolf).

Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

Reality TV?

The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (v. 29-31, NIV).

Oy Vey! Time for me to whip out my notes from Countryman's Dirt, Greed and Sex.

Yep, Paul was talking about a homosexuality "epidemic" in Romans 1 (our God does condemn people for illness, does he not?). It's not like Paul wrote Romans as an attempt to heal rifts between Jewish and Gentile Christians at that church; He wasn't using Greco-Roman rhetorical technique to capture the sympathies of the Jewish part of his audience by expressing the Jewish cultural connection of idolatry to the "uncleanliness" of gentile culture (verses 18-27) by bringing up homosexual acts instead of unclean foods as that bringing up unclean foods in such a context would only exacerbate tensions in table-fellowship between Jewish Christians concerned with food purity and Gentiles that didn't observe kosher. Nope, he wrote Romans to warn us about gay sex being responsible for all manner of evil in the world.

Countryman notes that the Greek word epithymia, translated in the NIV as "sinful desires" is more accurately translated as simply "lusts" as it is used again by Paul in Romans 7:7 and by the Septuagint in Exodus 20:17 being defined as the sin of coveting, Paul himself uses the word positively in 1 Thess 2:17 (his "intense longing" to meet of with his brothers in Thessalonia).

Countryman also points out that Paul has a very rich plethora of Greek words he could've used to describe the "sin" of homosexuality, such as:

  • sin (hamartia, hamartema)
  • lawlessness/transgression (anomia)
  • unrighteousness (adikiu)
  • impiety (asebia)

But he doesn't use any of these describing the homosexual acts, although he does use the language of physical purity, describing them as "unclean" and "shameful" (which they would have been to Jews).

The list of sins found in verses 29-32 -the sins that "deserve death" (note that there are no "purity" violations on that list, sexual or in any other physical sense) although practiced by the "impure" gentiles, were not limited to them as Paul then follows this by rebuking in the following verses those who judged the "impure" and even noting that the "pure" Jews commit the same sins as Pork-eating, dude-loving, two-crops-in-the-same-field planting Gentiles (Romans 2). Thereby preserving the unstable unity of the Roman church by not alienating his his entire Jewish audience (by acknowledging the Jewish purity code and Jewish "superiority" in this regard) defending his Gentile audience (by not presenting Gentile culture as uniquely sinful in and of itself), and laying a rhetorical smackdown on Jewish Christians that judged "impure" Gentiles (while simultaneously not appearing anti-purity to his Jewish audience). It is only after lengthy exposition on Jews and the Law, Gentiles, and the Grace of Christ does Paul finally bring up the matter of food purity (Romans 14).

Long story short. Dobson just shot himself in the foot, as Paul is saying that "every kind of wickedness" can also be found among those who practice purity codes. And adherence to purity codes are not conditions to receive the Grace of God.

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children.

Uh. Mr Dobson, I don't know what they taught at University. But at where I attend college my profs teach me that when you put forth an argument against something, you're actually supposed to put forth an argument.

Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.
Tom Green? I thought he was only married once, to Drew Barrymore, and even that only lasted a year.

Mr. Dobson, Lawrence v. Texas was about decriminalizing homosexual sodomy. It didn't really have much to do with gay-marriage (other than allowing the "gay" without the "marriage"). It seems to me that it was more a case of "there is no way we can enforce this law without violating the constitution, screw it" kind of thing.

I can't be the only person here who can see the irony of a "traditional, Biblical-model" family advocate complaining about polygamy which technically is the most "traditional, Biblical-model" type of family (although I believe it wouldn't function well in today's society, much like Dobson's patriarchy).

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.
Of course the state will have to prove that polygamy will hurt our society (which should be easy for them to do) because, technically, you can't prove a negative.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.
Yep, the institution of marriage never changed from it's original state of a man owning one or more wives (and perhaps a few concubines and slaves) obtained at the age of menstruation from their parents in exchange for three goats to a man owning only one wife (something the Jews adapted from those Grecian fags when Alexander the Great conquered Palestine, according to Bible Scholar L.W. Countryman) to the woman having a degree of ownership of her husband as well (You can thank the J-man for that one) to a committed and consensual life partnership between two adults where their financial assets are united, their insurance carried, ect.

Another thing Dobson didn't learn at school: "Slippery-slope" arguments are almost always fallacious.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

As opposed to the prohibition of marriage between homosexuals being supported by nothing more substantial than a power-mad right-wing demagogue's context-ignoring interpretations of a religious text, his nation's history, and the U.S. Constitution.

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four.

He's shooting off numbers like an auctioneer.

SOLD out our nation's Christian heritage."

Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!)

Like Tom Green the polygamist.

How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

I'm sorry Dobson, but marriage between relatives has been going on long time before the gay-rights movement.

"The legal underpinnings for marriage" destroyed? I guess Adam's insurance won't be carried to Steve then. Kinda like when they change the speed limit for a stretch of road, the legal underpinning of traffic-control is destroyed.

Yes Dobson, I see your point. Two consenting adults of the same sex entering into a state-recognized legal contract is a gateway to marriage with animals ("good luck signing the marriage certificate with that hoof, eh.") and that the only thing keeping courts from giving the seal of approval to relationships where the small and weakest of our society are selfishly abused by their elders is the "ick" factor, because it sure as hell can't be that courts recognize the fact that pedophiles actually hurt children.

Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit.

Oh, so they don't want any of the legal benefits of marriage, since ending of the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether would result in said benefits (aside from a very tall cake and a ceremony) going down the crapper. This is basically a modern day version of "if we let Jews drink from our well they will poison it".

And Dobson, as long as married couples own things, divorce will always be a matter of the courts.

With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

So gays want to get married and adopt kids because they hate commitment and the family. Makes sense.

Argument #4
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

NO! Not TEXTBOOKS! I want my kids to learn about homosexuality the old fashioned way. Evangelical Right-wing congressmen sending them dirty emails.

Argument #5
From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption.

Wow, I had no idea that there is such a high demand for and limited supply of orphans these days. I bet they move faster than flapjacks.

"Sorry, but Angelina Jolie was in here earlier today and she just cleared us all out. Why don't you come back Monday, that's when the truck comes in."

Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

Yeah, it's worse for orphans to be raised by a gay couple than to remain without parents, shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (now where have I heard that before?).

Yeah, I remember when you argued that straight-parent families do better than gay-parent ones from your guest column in Time, where you lied like the sleazebag you are.

Argument #6
Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

What can I say, it beats shipping them off to ex-gay camp against their will.

Argument #7
How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?

Is he just pulling these "arguments" out of his ass? It is speculated that roughly 10% of the population is gay, so even if they all decided to get married I seriously doubt it would flood the system. And since having dependents "burdens the system" why doesn't Dobson encourage cohabitation among his straight followers instead of marriage? Real swell knowledge you have of the economy there, Dobbie.

Argument #8
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

Wait wait wait. Pornography "spread throughout the world" -from America- after the Nixon Commission?

America is the "fountainhead of filth"? Somebody get this man an internet, STAT! Has this guy seen the shit coming out of Japan? Does he know what bukkake is? I know he has some familiarity with porn, mainly the kind with chicks "hanging from trees, and being murdered with knives, guns, ropes, etc" (me, I happen to be partial to the big-butts; but whatever floats your boat, man).

The point is that numerous leaders in other nations are watching to see how we will handle the issue of homosexuality and marriage. Only two countries in the world have authorized gay marriage to date-the Netherlands and Belgium. Canada is leaning in that direction, as are numerous European countries. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me two weeks ago that his country is carefully monitoring the United States to see where it is going. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate.

Actually Canada has already legalized gay-marriage. And, surprise surprise, families still exist and fire isn't raining from the skies. Who woulda thunk it?

And Dobbie, it might surprise you to realize that Canada and Europe doesn't look in your direction and think to themselves "That country run by George W. Bush, how can we become like it?"

Conversely, our U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution.13 What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.

So looking at how laws in other countries with cultures similar to yours for ideas on how similar laws will affect your country is grounds for impeachment, but lying about a reason for war isn't? Nice set of priorities you got there.

Argument #9
Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

That's kinda weird, considering how even though Jesus was not overtly hostile to the institution of the family, he did not portray"family-values" as a central part of the Gospel. There's also the fact that the Apostle Paul personally believed that raising a family distracted one from the work of the Kingdom. Ah Dobbie, your knowledge of scripture is rivaled only your knowledge of anthropology, sociology, and snuff-porn.

Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, "Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth" (NIV).

This is just me talking, but judging from the rest of that chapter, it's a condemnation of divorce, which you haven't really proven is caused by gays marrying in your country.

That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany and other European countries.

Yeah, I hear families and Christianity don't exist in Europe anymore.

Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. This is morally wrong, and is condemned in Scripture.

You see, this is what separates James Dobson from actual academics. Actual academics will actually present a case whereas Dobbie here will just repeat himself and panic.

Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to "normalize" and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!

"The third country in the world to 'normalize'" homosexuality? Somebody's doctorate isn't in historical studies.

Argument #10
The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.

"Like in the days of Noah"? I didn't know the Bible taught that God punished the entire earth for disobeying a Levitical purity law that didn't exist at the time.

This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That's why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord's favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.

"You need to pray harder, dammit!"

As of this time, however, large segments of the church appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). The lawless abandon occurring recently in California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere should have shocked us out of our lethargy. So far, I'm alarmed to say, the concern and outrage of the American people have not translated into action.

It could be that they aren't "taking action" because Christians are finally realizing what deceitful, wolf-crying, fear-mongering paranoiacs you and your Focus-fluffers are.

This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord's expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.

Long story short, if gays are allowed to marry, America will turn into this:

And to end things on a pleasant note. The musical humor of Roy Zimmerman: