The Right to Be Wrong

They'll Be Back

2012-01-23T12:42:00.006-07:00

I was so pleased to learn that, because of international protests (including the day-long blackouts of Wikipedia, Reddit, and a number of other sites), SOPA has been shelved “indefinitely.”

Here's a just fate for such an awful piece of legislation: Even the House Republicans who had initially supported this trashy law were forced to recant – although I'm sure their original motives for supporting a gut of the First Amendment were totally altruistic as well.

Well, today I saw a YouTube clip of Bill Maher talking about this on what I presume to be his show.

I don't think he has ever made himself look more stupid than with his support for SOPA.

He came across as shallow, of course, but his error here goes deeper: Maher had, by his own admonition, made very little effort to understand the bill and its incredible scope. He didn't know, for example – and he didn't seem to care when a panellist warned him -- that SOPA would have given complainants of any sort the unprecedented ability to have a site shut down merely by saying – not proving in court, mind you, but just by claiming -- that some kind of copyright infringement had taken place there.

These claims could be true, or false, or based on a misunderstanding of FAIR USE. No matter: They would all be treated the same. With SOPA, the burden of proving innocence would fall on site creators and users - some of whom might have to endure court costs merely to defend rights they should already have.

The practical results of SOPA would have been as follows:

**** The US Government, which should be upholding the Constitution, would instead create an office - a legal organ - that exists not to serve The People and protect their rights, but rather to cater to various recording industry pressure groups. In that office, all those who have been accused of copyright violation online would be treated as guilty until proven innocent.

**** The US Government could, under pretext of having its “copyright” violated, pull down sites like Wikileaks – you know, the one with footage of an Apache Helicopter crew firing on unarmed civilians, including a couple of kids.

**** It would piss off the international community even more. The US has squandered pretty much every ounce of sympathy or good will the world once had for it. If the government were to build an Iron Curtain around the internet, that would destroy the businesses of local content providers and ensure the rest of the world leaves America in the cold: The international net would simply route around the damage and stop using US servers or domain names or services.

**** SOPA would violate the First Amendment.

The United States already has copyright laws, as well as a legal process by which a wronged party can sue whomever misused his intellectual property.

At best, then, SOPA was superfluous. At worst – and let's be honest; SOPA was “at worst” pretty much from the outset – it would violate US and international law, as well as encroach upon the legal sovereignty of any nation that permits net business to be done through the United States.

But Maher, like the honey badger, simply didn't give a shit. The way he saw it, SOPA would have helped him, and so therefore it was a good thing.

He complained online piracy had robbed him of this alleged income his movie 'Religulous” would surely have made if only people hadn't had a chance to watch it free before buying.

(Thing is, if Maher had put the movie online and permitted people to watch it for free, he would have made back his cost and more from the ad money as well as from the 'honor tip jar' some filmmakers use.)

I know plenty of people who have watched torrents only to go buy the actual DVD after. Since this usually happens only with good movies, however, then I can understand what worried Maher.

And so despite all he had learned from his guests, Maher's final comment - the last turdlet of that segment, anyway – was this: “People just like to steal.”

(Sez me: Oh, pull your head out of your ass, you dinosaur.)

SO NOW WHAT?

That bill, or something else like it, will be back.

You now know you have the power, if you all act together with a common goal, to stop bad legislation – not only SOPA and its ilk, but future versions of the Patriot Act as well.

As you have all seen, freedom is not free. It requires that people - the people - be willing to fight. We must be willing to fight in court, in the boardroom, through elected representatives, in the streets, and anywhere else we're called to defend free speech, free assembly, free conscience, and a free press; for the right to an attorney, to a fair trial, to humane treatment in custody.

Just because Maher forgot bad legislation also applies to him doesn't mean the rest of us should.

If all you can do is write a letter, do it. If all you can do is donate to a cause you believe in, do it.

Just don't do nothing.

SOPA is a broad attack on all free speech

2012-01-18T19:17:00.000-07:00

Today, I sent the following letter to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada.

Dear Mr. Harper:

As you are likely aware, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is working its way through the US House of Representatives.

Although this bill is designed to stop piracy, its practical effect would be to chill all free speech – and in particular that which relies on Fair Dealing, such as satire – on any part of the internet in any way connected to the United States. This includes traffic passing through US servers from other countries, as well as Canadian users with domain names sold by US companies. (For more information on how this bill would affect Canadians, please look at the following website: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57329001-281/how-sopa-would-affect-you-faq/)

While I do agree with the need for copyright protection, I do not agree with much of anything that appears in SOPA, least of all its implicit attack on Canadian sovereignty by making those of us who provide web content subject to US copyright law despite our being citizens of another nation and our hosting content on Canadian or international servers.

SOPA also permits complainants to have an incredible amount of power, such that a site can be blocked or removed without notice to the content provider, and without any neutral third-party oversight that might be provided in a court of law.

This is not fear-mongering: It's fact.

SOPA is nothing less than a broad attack on the Freedom of Speech, and this attack extends to every country that allows users to access the global internet and upload content there.

If for no other reason than to protect our national sovereignty, it is imperative that the Government of Canada take a strong and unwavering stand against SOPA.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

A. Martin

Billboard destruction the act of petulant children

2012-01-18T07:58:00.004-07:00

It has been about a month since the controversial, “Mary Is in the Pink,” billboard was ripped down by a group of angry protesters. This vandalism, led by a man named Arthur Skinner, was the result of religiously-fueled outrage at what some see as the sacrilegious portrayal of a revered figure:

"Even people who aren't Catholics know instinctively you don't attack the Blessed Virgin who gave us the savour of the world," said Skinner. (Quote courtesy TV NZ)

Skinner argued Mary wouldn't have needed a pregnancy test – that she knew she was pregnant and was absolutely ecstatic about it.

While Skinner and his mob were wrong for damaging the billboard, their error here goes deeper: They assume Mary would have had an entirely inhuman reaction to the prospect of unwed motherhood in a situation where she could have been killed for it – especially given that she was betrothed at the time.

It doesn't matter that she consented; it's likely Mary would still be at least a little bit shocked to find that, yes indeed, she was a pregnant virgin.

The Bible records Joseph's initial reaction to the pregnancy: “Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.” – Matthew 1:19

This was the situation Mary faced, however briefly: A broken betrothal and being driven back to her parents in shame, assuming they would have her.

(Here, in modernity, she might seek the help of a crisis pregnancy center – you know, where women tend to be shamed and treated like crap and subjected to hours of belligerent sermonizing before they can earn enough credits to get second-hand stuff at the 'baby shop.')

And within that nexus, where Mary may have sat alone by her lamp as Joseph lay dreaming elsewhere, she likely wondered at her fate: The prophets had suffered in serving God, and so might she.

The billboard raised all those questions and more, challenging modern folks to consider their own attitude towards pregnant girls, regardless of circumstance.

But Skinner, being afraid of questions or subtlety – they anger him – decided he had a right to destroy the billboard merely because he didn’t like it.

Megan Phelps Roper stays while others walk away

2011-11-25T16:41:00.002-07:00

Here's an interesting tidbit from the Kansas City Star:

Megan’s importance to the movement stems also from the fact that for the past decade, the church’s future has been walking away at an alarming rate.

Since 2004, 20 members have left the Westboro Baptist Church, three-fourths of them in their teens or 20s. The defections have left a sizable dent in the group’s third generation, which, for a church that has relied almost exclusively upon family to populate its congregation, is not an insignificant development. There are those on both sides of the family who would like to guide Megan’s future.

Story HERE.

No, I don't “grieve for the mother”

2011-10-24T15:42:00.005-06:00

In 2005, an Alberta woman killed her newborn son.

Katrina Effert, who was 19 at the time, strangled her child with a pair of thong underwear, waited a few hours, threw his corpse over a fence into the neighbor’s yard, lied to police (blaming the child's father), and then eventually confessed.

Two separate juries found Effert guilty of second-degree murder. The first had sentenced her to life in prison. That didn't matter, however, because Effert eventually managed to draw a sympathetic judge who overturned the previous convictions and replaced them with a conviction for infanticide. Queen's Bench Justice Joanne Veit compared the action of strangling an infant to abortion, arguing that because Canadians allow for the former then they surely must be sympathetic to a young mother who commits infanticide while under stress.

“Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother,” said Veit, “but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”

I'm a Canadian, and I don't grieve for the mother.

I understand post-partum stress can do strange things to a human mind. I can even see how that might translate into murder for someone who is especially young and psychologically unbalanced. Such cases usually lead to infant death through abandonment (such as in a trash bag either outside or hidden somewhere in the mother's house).

Effert's case is different, however, because a) she presumably could have gotten a first-trimester abortion but chose not to, b) she killed the child in an especially vicious and heartless manner, c) she disposed of the body by throwing it over a fence, demonstrating a callousness that must be intentional, and d) she tried to pin the murder on someone else, showing a consciousness of guilt.

She should be serving a long prison term, but for some reason that makes no sense to me, Effert will walk with a suspended sentence despite having been found guilty by two different juries.

Thanks a lot, “Justice” Veit, both for putting words in my mouth (I grieve? I think not) and for allowing a cold-blooded killer to go free without having done much time at all.

I do hope Effert recognizes this reprieve for the gift it is and decides to do good with the rest of her life. It's certainly possible that she might change for the better, thus at least partially mitigating the injustice of her freedom.

The Pearls and yet another dead child

2011-10-01T19:24:00.002-06:00

Michael and Debi Pearl will have a lot to answer for on Judgment Day. Another child has died at the hands of neglectful parents who found succor for their cruelty in the Pearls' teachings.

Glenn Beck < WBC

2011-07-28T19:17:00.003-06:00

Okay, so you all know WBC pickets a few hundred feet away from select funerals. Most of you hate them for that.

I bet some of you like Glenn Beck, though, even despite his having pissed on the warm bodies of Brevik's 87 victims when Beck compared the kids' summer camp Breivik shot up to an arm of the Hitler Youth. And not only that, but Beck then insisted upon posting and reposting and reposting Breivik's racist manifesto on Youtube even despite that site's taking it down over and over again. (So much for respecting the free market, eh? Hypocrite.)

And then, because all that bullshit wasn't enough, Beck's followers - his stupid idiot, brain-dead followers - then began to comment as well.

Until you start caling out Beck and his idiot listeners, I don't want to hear jack shit from any of you about funeral protests. Any letter I get past this point, I'm going to answer it first with a question: Did you condemn Glenn Beck for crapping on the dead? If not, shut up.

Well-known atheist debater Thunderf00t vs. Margie Phelps

2011-07-13T10:15:00.004-06:00

Margie Phelps, who played an intergal part in arguing for WBC before SCOTUS, here presents her case for picketing to Thunderf00t.

And this is how it's done

2011-05-25T17:01:00.003-06:00

Comedian Lisa Lampanelli donates 20k to health initiative as part of a counter-protest against Westboro Baptist Church.

Concerning a recent attack on WBC member

2011-04-20T11:43:00.005-06:00

This information is preliminary, but it's the latest I can find regarding a recent assault against a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Several members of Westboro Baptist Church went to Brandon, Mississippi to protest at a military funeral, but they didn't actually make it to the picket site.

One of the WBC members was accosted and attacked at a gas station, and may have ended up in hospital as a result. There were several “witnesses,” apparently, but they all came down with a mysterious case of temporary blindness and thus couldn't provide a useful description of the assailant to police.

Meanwhile, back at the hotel where church members were staying, several trucks boxed in whatever vehicles they could find with Kansas plates and then the drivers disappeared until after the funeral.

It is my hope the police will eventually find out who assaulted the WBC member, perhaps after one of the witnesses regains his or her wits, so that a dangerous person – a person unstable enough to meet words with fists – can be taken off the streets.

That's the crux of this matter: An “unknown” assailant committed a criminal act against an unpopular man because the latter made a comment that angered the former. That's not amusing. That's not justice. The man who committed the assault is dangerous – a criminal.

Find and arrest him.

UPDATE: Turns out the entire series of incidents may have been cut from whole cloth, thankfully. Too bad the pair of asinine responses I got weren't.

In Defense of the (Disgusting) Terry Jones

2011-04-05T18:13:00.003-06:00

This is the sort of post I never wanted to have to write, defending the free speech of a man whose actions were a premeditated attempt to incite violence; a man who, against all advice and reason, burns books.

I never wanted to have to formally defend this mental wind-sock, but unfortunately, I might have to:

Harry Reid and Lindsey Graham yesterday both suggested that Congress take unspecified though formal action against the Koran-burning by Florida preacher Terry Jones, which triggered days of violence this week by angry Muslims in Afghanistan. (Story)

Preacher Terry Jones, a long-time critic of Islam and attention-whore of epic proportions, recently publicized footage of himself burning a Qur'an. Those images sent some murderous mullahs into a rage, and they whipped up a mob of Afghan citizens that then went on to kill – and not just kill, but tear limb from limb – 11 UN workers who had nothing whatsoever to do with Jones and his fuckery.

This touched off a wide-ranging debate about whether what Terry Jones did is protected speech, and about whether he shares at least some moral responsibility for the killings.

Yes, and yes – he has the right to burn books and to publish himself doing it, and yet he does share moral (though not legal) responsibility with the murderers.

Jones thinks all of Islam is violent, and has written extensively on the subject. He believed, with an extremely high degree of certainty, that his act would lead to violence and bloodshed. He even had his congregation arm themselves against what he saw as the eventuality of a Muslim attack on his now-defunct base of operations, Dove World Outreach.

He was warned by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates that his actions would potentially endanger US troops abroad. He carried out his plan anyway.

I think, at whatever point the ultimate judgment comes, Jones will share blood-guilt with the mob he helped to incite.

But he still had the legal right to do what he did, and no, the US government cannot take that right away from him; and it especially cannot capitulate to the whims of an angry mob.

What I hope some of the less educated pockets of people come to understand one day is that freedom for Terry Jones also means freedom for Muslims, who themselves will have the right to pursue their religious prerogatives in almost any non-violent manner they deem necessary. If the people of Afghanistan eventually come to adopt a robust bill of rights, which they are willing to defend, then their lives will be all the better for it; and hopefully, then mobs of this sort will become a shameful part of their history, rather than a daily reality.

Joshua Phelps Roper and Libby Phelps w/ Kevin Smith at 'Red State' (Podcast)

2011-03-24T08:59:00.003-06:00

WOW! Fuckin' wham!

That's all I'm gonna say: FUCKIN' WHAM!!!!

Just listen to the podcast (raunchy language; greeeeeeeeeat content).

(Magan Phelps in a push-up bra and mini-skirt? Waaaaa...Holy crap)

SCOTUS decides 8-1 in favor of WBC

2011-03-02T17:00:00.004-07:00

Story...

Free speech has again been upheld for all the citizens of the United States and, in a very real way, for the rest of the world as well.

I hope, in time, that others come to recognize this landmark decision for the good thing it is. Until then, however, at least those who oppose it will still have the freedom to voice their displeasure without fear of being sued into oblivion.

Congratulations, WBC: You have helped to preserve the right to be wrong.

READ THE SCOTUS DECISION

Anonymous and the Westboro Baptist Church

2011-02-28T17:16:00.003-07:00

(Story here)

A loose-knit group - if there actually is any sort of structure at all - of hackers, calling itself 'Anonymous,' recently hacked the WBC main site and left a threatening message.

Now normally I'd want to bitch slap the people responsible for shutting down WBCs freedom, but not this time - not because I have any love for Anonymous, but because WBC responded to past threats with an open letter that literally said, "Bring it."

And so the sovereign God of the universe allowed 'Anonymous' to hack the WBC website and probably do a bunch of other mischief-making.

Who am I to question the will of God?

Test madness

2011-02-16T12:02:00.003-07:00

Here's an argument for home-schooling:

"It's just yet another example that the country has gone test crazy," said Robert Schaeffer, public education director for FairTest, a national nonprofit that advocates for other methods of assessing young children. "This sort of insanity testing produces test coaching for little kids and gaming of the system by parents and others to figure out what's on the test and get their kid a leg up. We're not letting kids be kids, and we're making them into little Einsteins."

Parents hire tutors to help their kids pass admission tests for kindergarten? Yes, I've heard about this kind of thing before, and it always amazes me. I wonder how many organic learning opportunities - e.g., through play and socializing and nature walks - these kids are missing while they cram for those silly tests.

Caption Contest for FJ Users: Doug Phillips

2011-01-14T19:17:00.002-07:00

WBC v. Snyder - More on the arguments before SCOTUS

2010-10-17T15:47:00.001-06:00

Here...

WBC at the US Supreme Court

2010-10-07T02:55:00.001-06:00

Story...

My related statement to the CBC:

I believe that free expression is a foundational principle, and necessary for any democracy to operate as such. This principle is codified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the US Constitution, not to protect popular opinions but to protect unpopular ones. Any government interference that negatively impacts the exercise of free expression, especially as it pertains to religious belief (or the lack thereof), will chip away at the essence of what it means for a country to be free. Even in such cases as the great majority of people accept that censorship is necessary, such as when the law steps in to fetter the speech of those who openly counsel violence and murder, it is still a trade that affects all of us. We pay a collective price to silence any speech through the force of law, even that which most people would agree needs to be silenced.

When we as a people decide that some speech must be made illegal, we should do so carefully and with a full understanding of the price we pay.

In my opinion, the Westboro Baptist Church doesn’t merit that level of collective sacrifice. They do not counsel violence (even if they do claim that God is violent). They conduct their pickets on public rights-of-way. And they were 1000 feet from the funeral of Albert Snyder’s son.

It's not Christianity...

2010-07-28T14:33:00.002-06:00

Here's a great article briefly exploring how "American Christianity" has strayed from its roots and into idolatry.

And here's the interview DisConnect did with me about the WBC awhile back.

The Oil - We Brought It on Ourselves

2010-06-19T19:13:00.007-06:00

The idiot-and-chief over at BP, whose PR foibles include (but are by no means limited to) talking about how he wants his liiiiiiiife back, spent part of today...um...furiously working to stop the Deep Water Horizon spill from his privileged seat at a yacht race.

I think most people are already well past fed up with this guy, not that he’ll lose his job (let alone his freedom) for having allowed the utter destruction of the Gulf of Mexico to occur on his watch. (After all, the “big people” responsible for the latest “recession” – and come on, admit it; this was and is more than a mere recession – got to remain free after trashing the shit out of the global economy.)

But we brought Tony Hayward on ourselves. We turned a blind eye to people like this, who knowingly risked the lives of their workers and the livelihoods of nearby residents, just to feed our bottomless appetite for advancement at any cost. We, as a people, ignored extravagant levels of malfeasance within the petroleum industry for decades in part because the gears of society are greased with crude.

When a practically inevitable hurricane hits that mega-slick in the Gulf, and ends up pelting the coastline with blobs of oil (and perhaps the toxic solvent used to disperse the oil), I hope Hayward somehow ends up neck-deep in it.(More...)

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

2010-06-18T14:30:00.003-06:00

Vision Forum Ministries likes to have fun with statistics - especially where pet causes, such as endangering scores of women in a ridiculous test of ideological purity, are concerned:

Upon contacting organizations including several different Academies of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the National Right to Life organization, and data specialists within the CDC to verify the figure of 60-100 live births, none of these agencies had any knowledge of the existence of data supporting this suspicious claim. Even with the willing cooperation of all of these professional groups, I have only been able to verify a rough dozen of successful, documented births to date.

Vision Forum Ministries has been caught in a lie? No way!

Should a woman end an ectopic pregnancy? Part 2

2010-06-15T16:44:00.005-06:00

More from NLQ:

Oh but Cynthia, that's totally worth it: Those women would be dying for the greater glory of God, or something. Don't you get it? People aren't nearly as important as The Vision.

Should a woman end an ectopic pregnancy?

2010-06-14T17:17:00.002-06:00

At No Longer Quivering, Vyckie Garrison recently posted an article on Doug Phillips’ stance concerning ectopic pregnancies. He believes it’s wrong to end them, and derisively refers to this medically necessary practice as “elective abortion.”

Anyone who has read this blog for awhile knows just how little respect I have for Doug Phillips as a religious leader. I’m already disinclined to take his opinions seriously, when I can just crack a Bible myself and then read exposition by actual theologians.

But this cruel, lethal stupidity is galling even for him.

Ending an ectopic pregnancy is, to put it crudely, a matter of maternal self-defense. An ectopic pregnancy is almost always lethal for the fetus – and, from what I understand, it is absolutely lethal when the fetus begins growing in a fallopian tube.

The fetus is not viable. It does not have any chance at survival. And if a woman continues with an ectopic pregnancy in a misguided attempt to carry it to term, she herself may die.

Doug Phillips’ advice isn’t based in reality; it’s based on hubris and on the assurance that he himself will never suffer an ectopic pregnancy. It’s not pro-life in the slightest, nor is this matter really a legitimate topic of debate (no matter how "irenic" and civil he wishes to be about needlessly risking the lives of women).

Phillips blathers on about the dangers of moral relativism without recognizing that this situation is completely black-and-white:

In a very few cases, where a fetus begins to develop outside the womb, but not in a fallopian tube, there is a tiny chance this could result in a living child. It’s understandable that a woman might wish to continue this sort of pregnancy, and hopefully her doctors will guardedly support her decision and give her the best care possible.
Ectopic pregnancies that grow within a fallopian tube are, even with today’s technology, always non-viable. A woman should end such a pregnancy because there is no chance the fetus will survive and a very significant risk of death for the woman. That is just a brute fact: an ectopic pregnancy of this sort is no more viable than a molar pregnancy.

One of my all-time favorite quotes is by Albert Schweitzer, a physician and humanitarian who expanded on how to demonstrate a practical reverence for all life even while recognizing the primacy of sentient human beings:

What does Reverence for Life say abut the relations between [humanity] and the animal world? Whenever I injury any kind of life I must be quite certain that it is necessary. I must never go beyond the unavoidable, not even in apparently insignificant things. The farmer who has mowed down a thousand flowers in his meadow in order to feed his cows must be careful on his way home not to strike the head off a single flower by the side of the road in idle amusement, for he thereby infringes on the law of life without being under the pressure of necessity.

"Secular Homeschooling Magazine" and the Pearls

2010-06-08T10:04:00.003-06:00

Deborah Markus wrote an article for "Secular Homeschooling Magazine" to repudiate Michael and Debi Pearl's festering, maggot-ridden shit-pile of a book, To Train Up a Child.

Markus writes...

"If the ideas in TTUAC are what homeschooling is perceived as by members of the community and the mainstream population alike, anti-homeschooling sentiments are completely understandable. If TTUAC becomes widely associated with homeschooling in the public eye, a backlash is inevitable."

FULL ARTICLE

Michael Pearl seems to believe any publicity is good publicity, and even brags that book sales have gone up since the negative press he got following the death of Lydia Schatz. I don't care if more people buy his book, however, just so long fewer and fewer people see his methods as worthy of emulation.

So loing as everyone gets the chance to see that child-abusing asshole for what he is, it doesn't matter how much bank he makes. He can explain to God why he got earthly gain by counselling child abuse.

Splice (2009)

2010-06-08T08:09:00.003-06:00

Most theater-goers loved it, and some of them even clapped at the end. It did remarkably well on both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB, despite being of a genre that’s often ignored or maligned.

And I really wanted to like it, because I love creature features of virtually every kind – including the really awful ones.

I’m talking about the new movie, Splice, featuring Clive (Adrien Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley) as a pair of reckless scientists whose work includes creating a hybridized new species of animal to mine for disease-fighting genetic material.

After Elsa and Clive successfully create both a male and a female of their new species, they ask their funders for money to develop a human-animal hybrid to pick apart for cures to any number of diseases affecting humanity – or so they say. When their bosses turn down this request, telling the two to focus on synthesizing new proteins from the animals they’ve already made, Elsa convinces Clive to help her with a secret experiment.

They create the chimera (Delphine Chanéac), which is highly intelligent, highly adaptive, and a potential threat to humanity’s place on the food chain. Though the two of them end up adopting the chimera as a sort of surrogate child, naming it “Dren,” they still treat the creature like an experiment – a living monument to their disregard for ethical protocols.

They discover that Dren is capable of written communication, and yet they never attempt to converse with her – probably because both the demented Elsa and her cowering sidekick are bereft of basic human decency. They’re so unscrupulous and so unsympathetic in their treatment of Dren and each other that I was rooting for the chimera to kill them both.

And yet, while the movie plays a lot with morally questionable subjects, including rape and incest, it never deals seriously with ethics. It even fails as a standard creature feature because it spends too much time trying to shock the sensibilities of audience members.

It was uncomfortable to watch, but also thoughtless and ultimately cruel.

I nearly walked out in the middle of the movie – and having seen it to the end, I wish I’d gone with my animal instinct on this one.

EDIT: Glad I'm not the only one who thought the movie was bad

When "natural" is a lie

2010-05-04T21:08:00.000-06:00

I just read the story of how Autumn Sandeen, a transwoman and retired navy veteran, was treated after her arrest for civil disobedience. She and five other veterans, three men and two women, had chained themselves to the Whitehouse fence in protest over the continued existence of DADT.

Sandeen, a woman with breasts and male genitalia, was treated with disrespect by some of the officers she encountered during the 26 hours she was in custody. One of the officers referred to her as a “shim” – apparently a slur aimed at transwomen and on par with “fag” or “nigger.”

Because I have a website defending the Westboro Baptist Church’s pickets, I have heard the term “fag” literally thousands of times and I don’t think I’ll ever get used to it. WBC members are free to say the word and post it on their signs, but if my kid ever uttered that slur at someone, I’d correct her with a good ol’ grandma-style backhand to the mouth.

It occurred to me, while I thought about Sandeen’s case, that she’s facing a form of discrimination often aimed at the disabled – i.e., the undercurrent of debate, especially among those who hold to the medical model of disability, about whether people with disabilities should be left to exist on their own terms (or at all).

It is assumed that someone born with a disability will be exposed to every surgery and therapy available, without concern for whether the benefit of a normal appearance outweighs the financial and psychological costs associated with the therapy. Intersexed people, those who’ve had extensive cosmetic surgery to correct a birth defect, and deaf kids who’ve been fitted with cochlear implants are among the many who’ve been exposed to invasive, unnatural “normalizing” surgeries. (The late Harriet Johnson McBride, a disability-rights lawyer and wheelchair user, once expressed gratitude that her parents had never consented to rodding surgery that would have straightened her spine. She was perfectly comfortable bent over in her chair with her torso resting on a pillow.)

The natural form of someone with a disability may be viewed with suspicion, and “normalization” through surgery is often seen as the best option for removing the social stigma attached to being different. Functionality and comfort are sometimes of secondary importance, or not considered at all.

When Sandeen set about changing her appearance to match her internal awareness of gender, she no doubt met resistance from people who argued that sex-change surgery and hormone treatments are unnatural. What her critics really meant, however, is that sex-change surgery and hormonal treatments are abnormal.

When it comes to how stigmas are developed by society and affixed to individuals, nature always takes a back seat to "normalcy." If someone isn't average, however natural her unusual condition, she'll still be treated with contempt by people who can't set aside their own prejudices.

And when those same people complain that sex-reassignment surgery/hormone therapy is unnatural, they're merely spewing tired, hypocritical bullshit; because almost all of them are willing to defy "nature" again and again if that means they or their children get to look "normal."

It is not typical for a woman to have breasts and male genitalia – and for her to adopt this form by choice is so shocking to some people that the only response their tiny minds can muster is a crude slur.

Sandeen is coming up against people who don’t recognize her right to exist, let alone to identify as a woman. I suspect these are, by-and-large, the same folks who whine about building codes that demand full accessibility for wheelchair users. ("OMG! They want the same rights as us. We're special, so that must mean they want special rights. The bastards!")

But Sandeen has the right to exist – not only as she used to be, but also as she is, without apology and without having to face discrimination. And she has the right to dignified treatment from everyone, but especially from people who are being paid to act professionally and according to clear guidelines.

Note: I know that transgendered people have been treated as disabled and labeled as having "Gender Identity Disorder." I don't think the desire to change one's gender is a mental illness, but I do think it can be classified as a disability for the purposes of funding sex-change surgery and passing anti-discrimination laws. And, as I pointed out above, there are some parallels between how disabled people and transsexuals are treated. Likewise, the rhetoric of "passing" - e.g., that a transwoman is actually a "female impersonator" - is, in my mind, somewhat similar to the arguments over whether any person with physical or developmental issues can properly be considered "disabled" (...or whether a part time wheelchair user is entitled to the same accommodations as a full time wheelchair user, etc.).

RELATED DOCUMENTS:

Challenging the view that disability is, in itself, a tragedy that must be mitigated
Adults with disabilities often have a harder time accessing needed care (because...well...whatever normalizing work that can be done has been done)
Disability Discrimination at Work: A Publication of the International Labour Office
State-by-state statistics on disability-related hate crimes - and bear in mind that these crimes are grossly under-reported and under-documented

Note to teabaggers: If you don't want to be called stupid, stop acting like idiots

2010-05-03T12:39:00.004-06:00

Over at Slacktivist, Fred Clark posted the following:

Let's set such timid delicacy aside and state the obvious: The tea partiers are stupid. Look at them, listen to them -- these are stupid people behaving stupidly. They are hideously ill-informed and monstrously unconcerned with the fact of their being ill-informed. Their stupidity fuels their anger and their anger fuels their stupidity. Spend five minutes listening to them and the overwhelming impression of resentful stupidity will only be reinforced. Spend hours listening to the speakers receiving the cheers at their rallies and hours more listening to Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh or any of the other demagogic leaders of this mob of a movement and the conclusion becomes undeniably confirmed: Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The whole article is worth a read.

What the hell is wrong with this picture?

2010-04-24T20:48:00.005-06:00

Psalm 18:25-26

With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright; With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the forward thou wilt shew thyself forward.

"A heroic homeless man, stabbed after saving a Queens woman from a knife-wielding attacker, lay dying in a pool of blood for more than an hour as nearly 25 people indifferently strolled past him, a shocking surveillance video obtained by the New York Post reveals." (Full Story)

25 of you walked by a bleeding man, dying of stab wounds, and you did nothing but stare?

Disgusting

2010-04-19T10:12:00.004-06:00

The way these two men were treated is beyond the pale, and has no relationship at all to basic human decency. I hope Greene bankrupts the County of Sonoma in court.

Why Zsuzsanna Anderson Is Wrong – Part 2

2010-04-17T18:48:00.006-06:00

(Continued from Part 1)

During the course of her post on the evils of federal taxation, Zsuzsanna wrote: “My husband has been out since 10 pm last night working not just to provide for our family, but to also finance every lazy whore who lives on welfare and expects my husband to pay for her bastard children she has with all different exes.”

Here's is a wonderful teaching opportunity for those who actually enjoy reading the Bible.

Zechariah 7:10 – “And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart.”

Psalms 10:14 – “Thou hast seen it; for thou beholdest mischief and spite, to requite it with thy hand: the poor committeth himself unto thee; thou art the helper of the fatherless.”

I’m pretty sure I know how Zsuzsanna would tackle these verses: she might argue that she’s only obligated to help the fatherless and the needy who follow her personal convictions. BZZZZT! Wrong!

Luke 6:32-35 – “For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.”

Those are the words of the Bible, plain and straight. They’re presented in their proper context here. She’d have better luck arguing that the sky is green than to say her duty isn’t clear, her own personal thoughts on those “whores” and “bastards” notwithstanding.

When several commenters pressed her on the matter, Zsuzsanna spewed and sputtered and spat but failed to produce anything useful concerning how those single mothers should provide for their own children. She doesn’t think women should work outside the home; and even if she did allow for working mothers, she abhors the very idea of daycare. She’s opposed to public schooling as well.

I guess the little bastards should just accept their lousy lot, underfed and poorly educated, because, “Everyone should not live equal. Some work harder than others, some have higher morals, some pray for God to bless them.”

Higher morals, eh?

Isaiah 64:6 – “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.”

Her husband, her children, her home, and her very life are all on loan from God. She owns none of these things. Even her morals are the result of a grace no human can access without first being called to it by God – and yet she dares to speak so ill of her fellow sinners because their morals aren’t as “high” as hers?

Zsuzsanna should be grateful that God doesn’t reward any of us according to desert, and she should be happy with what she has rather than begrudging the pittance “stolen” from the taxpayers by all those lowlife whores. (But she's not content. Her often spiteful, cruel posts suggest that she's a Gloomy Gus indeed.)

After being raked over the coals, Zsuzsanna added this charming caveat: “But I do not consider it an honest need if someone willfully put themselves in a bad position through their sinful choices.”

John 8:3-11

3) And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4) They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5) Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6) This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7) So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8) And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9) And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

She then continued: “It is wicked and wrong of the government to steal money from one family with certain values and morals and give it to someone else who lives a sinful, lascivious life financed by those same moral people they want to be nothing like.”

I’ve already dealt with how her stance on taxation is wrong, which leaves only one matter worth mentioning: She, her husband, and all her children had the sentence of death in themselves, but were granted a reprieve entirely as the result of someone else paying what the law demanded.

Without that, all her great morals would have availed her nothing – filthy rags.

(She responded to her detractors by complaining about how taxes are spent on warfare – a legitimate concern, were it not set up merely as a smoke-screen to cover her original comments which demonized the poor while saying nothing at all about military spending.)

Why Zsuzsanna Anderson Is Wrong – Part 1

2010-04-17T17:41:00.008-06:00

Before launching into an explanation of how I think Zsuzsanna Anderson was being unnecessarily cruel in a recent post, I’ll first explain what’s wrong with her (and her husband’s) views on taxation.

She writes: “April 15, Tax Day - The day we are reminded that we are all slaves to the global banking elite.”

I’ve heard this opinion before, that taxation is tantamount to slavery – and I’m going to post almost exactly the same thing I did the last half-dozen times I’ve encountered this argument.

I simply do not accept your definitions of slavery / involuntary servitude: You’re not required to work for a specific individual. In fact, you’re not required to work at all. I daresay taxation is a peculiar form of slavery; people who do not toil are not required to pay - and yet those people may still use the roads, the police force, and practically any other service created through taxation. (Oh, Zsuzsanna argues that local taxes are different from federal taxes, because 'everybody pays local taxes,' but she conveniently forgets that a) all those "whores" pay local taxes with welfare money, and b) things like road maintenance (etc.) are paid for largely through taxes that only land-owners are required to pay.)

Money, more than any other kind of property, is a thing of this world. It is almost universally stamped with the likeness of a national leader, whether that be a Caesar or a president, and – at least where paper bills and debit cards are concerned – would have no intrinsic value at all were the currency not given such by the government that issues it.

Mark 12:13-17

13) And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

14) And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?

15) Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.

16) And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.

17) And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

Not only did Jesus say this to put the Pharisees off balance, but he lived by that rule himself as evidenced in the passage below.

Matthew 17:24-27

24) And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25) He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26) Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27) Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

(Zsuzsanna responded to that argument, as made by other posters, with this precious bit of hairsplitting: "As for "render unto Caesar" - we do not have a Caesar. Rome was an occupying force of the nation of Israel in Jesus' day, and they....blah, blah, blah."

What face is on every piece of US currency? That of a president - a government leader. It doesn't matter that the Federal Reserve is a private organization. Governments confer value on their currency. On it, they stamp the faces of their leaders, past and present. Stop making an idol of your money!)

Jesus paid the tribute, which was a government tax; and further, he relied upon God to provide the necessary money. And not only did he pay taxes, but his guardians also:

Luke 2:1-5

1) And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2) (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4) And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

There is only one class of people in the Bible exempt from taxation:

Ezra 7:24

24) Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.

They were exempt from all taxes then, and are exempt from a great many taxes now.

Besides the tributes, there were also tithes to be paid. These were not optional; they were mandatory:

Leviticus 27:30

30) And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land,
or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD's: it is holy unto the
LORD.

The tithe is nothing more than a tax levied against parishioners for the continued operation of the Temple. As you probably believe that social assistance should flow from the church, and not the state, part of this tithe money would also be spent on social services. Either way, you have to pay.

In addition to tributes and tithes, people were also commanded to be charitable on their own:

Leviticus 19:9-10

9) And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.

10) And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.

I encourage you to read an article from the Accounting Historians
Journal called “The development of taxation in the Bible: “Improvements in counting, measurement, and computation in the ancient Middle East.”

It provides a detailed discussion on taxes in the ancient Middle East, and you can find the whole of it by clicking here.

To put it bluntly, people were and are commanded to give for tithes, tributes, and social assistance. Whether they do so cheerfully or grudgingly is their own concern.

Individuals were not and are not freed by fiat, divine or otherwise, to disregard their social and financial obligations – and especially not their obligations to the oppressed.

If you're interested...

2010-04-15T13:54:00.004-06:00

...I'm being interviewed by Andrew Navolio, from disConnect, tonight, and will post a link to the podcast when it becomes available.

...on March 15, Chalsea Calhoun wrote a story about the WBC for Temple News Online that mentioned therighttobewrong.net - and it was a great read.

Separate But Equal

2010-04-06T19:07:00.014-06:00

Highschool senior Constance McMillen wanted to take her girlfriend to the prom. The school said no. She took the case to court and won. But parents and students at her highschool were appalled – simply appalled – that they might have to attend a function with one of those dirty lesbos, so they threw their own private party and directed Constance to the official school get-together – a Prom attended by fewer than ten students and five chaperons. The FireDogLake blog La Figa reported on this incident and dubbed Fulton, Mississippi, where this brouhaha took place, the meanest town in America. One of the students who attended Itawamba Agricultural High School with Constance decided to post a “defense” for all the bigots who skipped out on her and had a giant “fuck-you” revenge party somewhere in the boonies. BegLeg10 wrote…

**Open Minded Readers Only**

Seriously - that's how he begins his "defense" - by appealing specifically to open-minded readers. Let me guess, BegLeg: your yearbook committee voted you most likely to become a total Tool.

I am a senior at IAHS, and I’ve known Constance for the last 6 years. Please hear our side of the story before you decide on our fate.

Oh, the dramatics! His fate! In about ten years, God willing, his fate will be to suffer embarrassment over writing this crap.

The party we had in Evergreen (the county neighborhood I live in) is 30 mins away from the school. we rented out the community center, hired vendors, decorated, and our parents ran the security/chaperone staff- but it wasn’t prom.

No, it wasn’t. It was a revenge party where all you hook-up obsessed hypocrites congratulated yourselves on being better than that uppity homo. It doesn’t matter that the majority of you were changing bed-partners as often as you changed underwear. The important thing here is that You Are Not Gay – and you had an “everyone-but-Constance” party to prove it.

Your puerile parents ought to be ashamed of themselves for helping you with this fuckery, but I suspect the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree in your case.

Prom was at the country club where constance and 7 other students were. The reason the senior class boycotted the actual prom was not because we hate gays.

Some of your best friends are gay, right?

We wanted a drama-free gathering to celebrate 3 great years and 1 lousy one together, and we wanted to lay low. We also wanted to do it without the main cause of the lousy.

The “main cause of the lousy” was one girl who wanted to attend the prom with her same-sex date? I know you’re still just a kid, BegLeg, but you really need to get over yourself – and fast. No one else can make you feel anything. If you had merely let her go to the prom in her tux, without whining like a bunch of second-graders with boo-boos, this would never have happened. In other words, your lousy year was your lousy fault.

...and never mind the stupidity of wanting to "lay low" by having a giant fucking party.

What people are failing to realize is that much of the fault of this whole stink lies with Constance, not her mistreatment by the school district, but her crazy-reckless need for attention.

Your feelings and actions were her fault? Like I said above, welcome to adulthood - a life-stage where you become entirely responsible for your own thoughts and actions.

It sounds mean and horrible and like we planned it all specifically to embarrass Constance, but we didn’t.

I actually believe you, here, BegLeg. I seriously doubt you and your friends planned this. Your parents forked over the money for your private party, and they attended as chaperons and security. It’s not your fault your parents raised you to be an entitled little monster, but now that you’re older, it’s time to put away childish things.

We let her have her prom with her girlfriend and her tuxedo…

You didn’t let her do anything. The court put the boot down on your nonsense and you guys flipped out and spent thousands of dollars to put that bitch in her place.

…and we went to party it up in the “boondocks” not because we wanted her rights violated, but so we could salvage what has turned into a total fiasco.

You wanted to ‘salvage this fiasco’ by having a big party where nearly everyone was invited except for two girls – because Constance in a tux would be so much more attention-grabbing than the entire line-up of cheap, trashy, tulle-bedecked, rhinestone-encrusted prom dresses almost all the other girls were wearing that night.

You’re not above the depraved culture you decry; you’re wallowing in it like a pig in mire.

As a whole we didn’t support her decision to throw the district under the bus, or her insinuations that we’re all just a bunch ‘a hicks driving around in beater pick up trucks spitting tobacco and burning crosses.

Yeah – who needs her insinuations when your own words are sufficient to damn you?

IAHS is one of the top schools in the state and I’m proud of that, and I’m proud that we took a stand and just said you know what? forget it, we have just as much right as you do to have a party for ourselves.

No one ever claimed otherwise: You guys threw your tantrum and had your party, and now you’re getting flak for it. Flak is always the result of an unpopular decision, wrong or right, so stop whining and take it like a man.

So we did, and now we’re getting flack because poor Connie’s ego got a bit of bruising.

Don’t worry about her ego, lily-liver; worry about your own decrepit character.

She’s playing the lesbian card to prove she ALWAYS gets what she wants. This time, we didn’t just let her.

The lesbian card, eh? You yourself said that highschool consisted of three good years and one bad one – so Constance couldn’t have playing “the lesbian card” all that consistently from grades 9 through 11. No – she wanted to go to the prom and you guys had a little hissy fit. And your parents enabled you in it.

Take it as you will, because I’m sure it sounds like we faked her out, but understand this- the decision NOT to attend prom had nothing to do with the school or with Constance’s sexual preferences; it had everything to do with proving we weren’t going to let her and the ACLU steamroll us into doing what Constance wanted.

You are not, nor were you ever, entitled to attend a school-sponsored function where only the people you liked, in the outfits you liked, with the dates you liked, were allowed to show their faces. You had a right to throw your own private party, which you did - but don't turn around and cry about the flak you're getting as the result of a decision you made.

Remember: You are now responsible for the things you do.

I can't stress this enough: You are responsible for your actions, you thoughts, and your feelings.

When you helped your fellow students ostracize a girl for wanting to "dress wrong" and "date wrong," you became responsible for the ensuing 'lousy year."

We flexed the muscle of the majority and we’ll suffer the consequences.

Ooooh! You successfully shunned a girl - in highschool. That is, like, so brave of you - and rare, too. It was only when the 'majority flexed its muscle' that you managed to pull off such an amazing feat, not only of putting one lone girl in her place but also of standing up to the awful, slow creep of civil rights.

50 years ago, you'd have been boycotting the Prom because a "Negra" wanted to attend, and with her white boyfriend to boot!

You and most of the IAHS class of 2010 may be America's largest clique, but in the end that's all you are. You can make yourselves out to be heroes who suffer for your principles, but you're really just a bunch of spoiled brats and every bit as depraved as you think your classmate is.

How to Respond to a WBC Picket

2010-03-27T19:52:00.002-06:00

I've been asked several times over the years to discuss how an angry counter-demonstrator should react to a WBC picket. My answer was never this good.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you should react to a WBC picket.

They have their rights respected.

Your children get to keep their rights.

And gay-rights organizations get additional funding.

It's an epic win all around.

The Hijacking of Christianity - a Rant

2010-03-17T18:20:00.011-06:00

Jonathan Rice has an article up at No Longer Quivering about the politicization of Christian fundamentalism. If this topic is even remotely interesting to you, than the NLQ post is a must-see.

It also touches on some themes I've been thinking a lot about lately.

As far as I'm concerned, modern Christianity has suffered no greater tragedy than that of politicization - and the right-wing strain of it is becoming ever more about the idolatrous worship of earthly power.

The Bible does talk about the structure of earthly authority at home and in society, but nowhere is it mandated (or even permitted) for a believer to seek power merely for the sake of having it. Indeed, leaders are to be the servants of all - humble, lovers of mercy (Micah 6:8), and above reproach in their personal lives. Check it out:

1 Timothy 3:1-7 (King James Version)

1) This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work [ESV: ..."a noble task"].

2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5) (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

6) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7) Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without [ESV: "outsiders"]; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

So...

Someone who desires leadership, and who is fit for it, will be more interested in the duties than in the title and office. That qualifier alone would rule out men with dynastic ambitions.
He must be blameless. Folks currently under indictment need not apply.
He must be hospitable. Someone who lives in a fortress well away from parishioners (or the electorate), and only deigns to see them from a stage once in awhile, because he doesn't want to soil himself, should be kept the hell away from power.
He must not be violent.
He must not be greedy. There's nothing wrong with having money, but the love of money - and the pursuit of it at any cost - is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10).
His children should also be good citizens, rather than spoiled embarrassments.
Outsiders may not like his positions but even they will recognize his fitness to lead.

If all the candidates ever touted by the religious right were held to that simple Biblical test, I daresay most of them would fail - and that, miserably, since many would be deficient in more than one area.

Infidelity, corruption, an addiction to unnecessary violence - these are common problems among those held up as ideal political (and church) leaders by certain religious-political organizations.

And this will to power, which has so thoroughly corrupted some of the organizations once dedicated merely to helping Christian families, has led to a parallel corruption in the spiritual lives of participants.

From Rice's article:

As the content of our faith changed, so did our conceptualization of Jesus. He was no longer a God of love, but a muscle-bound tyrant. Speaking of the Christian Right in 2009, journalist Max Blumenthal’s following description also summarizes the view of Jesus that was gaining ascendancy among us in the 1990s:

The movement’s Jesus is the opposite of the prince of peace. He is a stern, overtly masculine patriarch charging into the fray with his sword raised against secular foes; he is “the head of a dreadful company, mounted on a white horse, with a double-edged sword, his robe dipped in blood,” according to movement propagandist Steve Arterburn. [Mega-church pastor] Mark Driscoll…stirs the souls of twenty-something evangelical men with visions of “Ultimate Fighting Jesus…”

Okay - just for fun, let's look at the book - perhaps dusty and in pristine condition - that these rage-addicted he-men claim as their guide for life:

Matthew 26:52 (ESV) - Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'"

Yup, the apostles carried swords, probably for self-defense, but they weren't even allowed to use them in preserving the life of their leader. God alone is the author of vengeance, and even God abstains out of mercy. EPIC FAIL, Steve Arterburn!

Anyway...

Although the organization that employed me was benign and apolitical, through my involvement with it I was exposed to the other big ministries in the area. Year after year I witnessed countless episodes of hypocrisy and self-congratulatory backslapping amongst Christian Right leaders. I soon felt uneasy amongst people I’d once greatly admired.

The church we attended turned out to be a de facto outpost of the Republican Party, and according to the pastor’s bizarre interpretation of an Isaiah passage, God had foreordained Republican Jesus to defeat Babylonian Saddam Hussein. By 2005, the church was showing a smiling picture of Sam Brownback each Sunday on the large overhead screen. The pastor would then instruct us to stretch forth our hands and pray fervently for him.

Christians have a right to their own political interests, voting according to conscience. But all too often, Christians - and news-radio junkies, especially - aren't voting according to their own consciences, but rather they're "deciding" based on what they've been told by amoral leaders.

Most Christians aren't politically aware. They're merely politically active. There's a big difference between the two. The unaware are part of a large demographic being mobilized through slick political campaigns. They don't move of their own volition; they're moved by others. Not only is their integrity compromised, but their faith as well.

Profile in Courage

2010-03-13T01:10:00.006-07:00

“Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.” – Proverbs 31:25

A 16-year-old woman, Autumn, fell into courtship with a man and married him. Her father quizzed this man and spent time with him beforehand, assessing his character and motivations. But some people are skilled at exuding superficial charm.

According to Autumn, the guy turned out to be an abuser, both verbally and physically. After hiding the trouble in her life for awhile, Autumn eventually told her family and approached the elders of her church. Church authorities made excuses for her husband, but eventually discovered for themselves that he wasn’t interested in working on the marriage.

After just a few months, Autumn and her husband filed for divorce. After a few more months, she wrote about the experience on her blog:

As soon as 2 days after the wedding, *** was a different person. He was quiet, mopey, irritable. I was confused. Why would he be like this only 2 days after our wedding? He was verbally abusive, putting down everything that I did. Nothing I did pleased him. No matter how hard I tried, nothing was good enough. Soon enough, the verbal abuse turned into physical abuse.

Eventually, even the most skilled scammer has to come clean. Cracks appear in his façade. He loses whatever self-control he once had, and eventually escalates from verbal to physical abuse. This is classic abuser-behavior.

And so, too, is this:

He made me feel like I was only a young child. I tried doing things differently to please him. I tried asking him what he wanted me to do before I did anything. Still, nothing would satisfy him. He would pick the silliest, smallest things to become upset over.

Autumn at first responded as any victim of abuse might:

I held it all inside. I told everyone that we were doing wonderfully. But mom knew that something was wrong. She would ask if I was ok, and I would assure her that everything was fine. I would always come up with one excuse or another.

But then she did something that many victims of abuse either take a lot longer to do, or never do at all:

Eventually, I couldn't take it any more. I told mom. Everything. She was very concerned and upset, and advised me to talk to the church elders so that *** could get help.

A lot of people reacted just as one would expect:

Because I had been telling everyone that Jon and I were doing just fine, when I finally did tell, many people didn't believe me….A few people have made the comment that I am now, "damaged goods."

But Autumn had heard enough bullshit to last her a lifetime, and said…

I do not feel impure. I did nothing wrong. I was married – if, down the road, I get married again, a good, godly man will see no wrong in what I did….My decision was very carefully thought out, and I do not believe that I am in the wrong. The divorce is already final.

She refused to take marital advice from guys who told her this was normal – or worse, that they treated their own wives like that and simply ‘couldn’t see the problem.’

Look at Autumn. That is what a titanium backbone looks like. That was what the Proverbs 31 woman was probably like before she had the chance to take her place as the mistress of a thriving household: ready to be a help meet for her husband, but never a doormat.

Here's the Christian marriage contract:

Ephesians 5:21-33

21) Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22) Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26) That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27) That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28) So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29) For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32) This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33) Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Autumn found grounds to leave her husband because he was dishonest about his previous relationships. As far as I'm concerned, however, he broke his part of the contract when he put his hands on her to hurt or threaten her.

The pew-warmers at Autumn's church who claimed to treat their own wives like that are also covenant-breakers. It's a shame their own wives don't do as Autumn did, and kick to the curb these unnatural men who hate their own flesh.

Remember: Suitable helper, not doormat.

SEE ALSO: "I used to admire John Piper, but..."

Gentle Christian Mothers' Statement on To Train Up a Child

2010-03-06T20:11:00.003-07:00

A GCM Statement: It is Time to Speak Out Against the Teachings of Michael and Debi Pearl

This statement may be re-posted in its entirety.

The admins of Gentle Christian Mothers (GCM) have felt led at this time, as we mourn the loss of seven year old Lydia Shatz[1], to issue a statement of disagreement with Michael and Debi Pearl and their child rearing methods. Not only are their methods extreme and outside the realm of normal and healthy child rearing practices, but the doctrinal foundation for these methods contain a level of heresy, including denial of the Christian doctrine of original sin[2][3], which leave them without biblical basis and at odds with the truth that all are in need of salvation which has been provided through Jesus alone[4].

Though the Pearls affirm the value of relationships in parenting in their attractive "tying heartstrings" message, their harsh teachings are in diametric contrast to building healthy relationships. They advocate "training" and "chastisement" of children, starting in infancy[5][6], using methods and means not described in Scripture -- including using ¼ inch plumber’s supply line as a spanking instrument[7] and claiming that a "proper spanking leaves children without breath to complain"[8] -- for stated purposes of absolving guilt and cleansing the child's soul[9].

The combination of an adversarial us vs. them mindset where the parents must "win," physically "disciplining" children until they surrender their will and show total submission, and false doctrine makes the Pearls' methods dangerous. They present a very distorted picture to the world of what it means to be a follower of Jesus and a Christian parent in the world today. It is time for Michael and Debi Pearl to be held accountable for their teachings. We urge other Christians to join us in speaking out against what Michael and Debi Pearl have been teaching for far too long.

References

1. Godly discipline turned deadly: A controversial child "training" practice comes under fire -- this time from Christians themselves, Lynn Harris, Feb. 22, 2010
2. Second Council of Orange (529)
3. Teaching tape on Romans 5:12-21 by M. Pearl
4. "Michael Pearl on Original Sin: An Analysis," Catez Stevens, October 11, 2005
5. To Train Up a Child, M. Pearl, D. Pearl, chapter 1
6. "In Defense of Biblical Chastisement Part 2," M. Pearl, October 2001
7. Ibid.
8. "Angry Child," M. Pearl, August 1998
9. "In Defense of Biblical Chastisement Part 1," M. Pearl, May 2001

I'm glad to see this, even as I was glad to discover that my favorite Christian bookstore does not carry "To Train Up a Child."

Michael Pearl's asinine response to his critics, who are currently spotlighting him for the role his book played in the death of seven-year-old Lydia Schatz, shows a shocking degree of arrogance. I hope the blow-back from it hits Pearl square in the...pocket-book.

Victim-Blamers Strike Again

2010-03-01T02:50:00.013-07:00

Some anonymous cretin, too frightened to accept responsibility for the crap she writes, has produced a scurrilous tract aimed at “provocatively” dressed women.

The leaflet, called “Women & Girls,” has been making the rounds in Bristol, VA, and was brought to the attention of the Bristol Herald Courier by a properly scandalized 19-year-old who received it while working at a fast food restaurant.

Keshia Canter was taking orders at the drive-through window of Hi-Lo Burger when she was accosted by an older woman – a passenger in the back seat of a car.

The woman, who never identified herself, told Canter she was inciting men to sin, and gave her the leaflet.

In addition to a treatise against immodest dress, the leaflet also includes a section blaming rape victims for sexual assault. The second page, for example, contains a singularly incredible statement: “By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?”

Now, the last time I encountered this kind of bullshit, I guest-posted about the stupidity and irrationality of victim-blaming over at Sweeping the Cobwebs. I pointed out that 65% of all rape victims know their attackers, that 40% of all sexual assaults happen in the victim’s home, and that an additional 20% take place in the homes of people the victim knows.

Victims of sexual assault come from all walks of life, all age groups, and both genders. Seniors, children, people with disabilities – all of these vulnerable populations attract predators, regardless of clothing choice. (Click here to read my post)

And on those vanishingly rare occasions when clothing might have been an important element to a rapist, this would in no way diminish his responsibility for the assault. He was not entitled to misuse someone merely because he saw her and liked how she looked. To assert otherwise is ridiculous in the extreme, and the logical conclusion of rape-apology is that any crime driven by lust or greed is perfectly acceptable.

If someone sees a television she likes, then it’s understandable – nay, justifiable! – when she breaks the giant store-front window and takes the object of her desire. After all, if a merchant didn’t want his products stolen, he wouldn’t have put them on display. Can he really be called an innocent victim, when it turns out he had that giant TV positioned right in front of an easily-broken window?

Like I said – fucking ridiculous.

The “Women & Girls” leaflet is a cruel bit of rape-apology, and its ugly content encourages precisely the kind of drive-by insult that Canter endured.

I can’t imagine that anyone is stupid enough to think this approach will lead even one woman to change her wardrobe. (And thank God for that, since the entire premise of the leaflet is grossly flawed and more offensive than an overflowing porta-john.)

I can only assume, then, that the leaflet was written and distributed by people who are malicious merely for the hell of it. They have obviously forgotten, or chosen to ignore, all the Biblical admonitions about gentle speech.

They’re Bible-dumb in another way as well. Jesus made it crystal clear what he thought of this victim-blaming nonsense.

Matthew 18:9 (ESV): “And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.”

They have also misunderstood the verses relating to modest apparel for women: The Biblical charge for women is to focus on developing character rather than focusing on the externals. In fact, this is a running theme throughout the Bible – and not only for women, but for men as well:

1 Samuel 16:7: But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart."

Proverbs 31:25: Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at the time to come.

Matthew 23:27: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.

1 Peter 3:3-4: (3) Do not let your adorning be external – the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear (4) but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

Now, that pamphlet contains a question: “Have you thought about standing before the true and living God to be judged?”

The individuals responsible for writing and distributing the pamphlet might want to ask themselves this question. If that hurtful bilge falls into the hands of someone who had been raped in the past, the authors and distributors of “Women & Girls” will have a lot of explaining to do on Judgment Day.

Rebekah Anast defends her foolish parents

2010-02-25T16:15:00.006-07:00

Okay, I just can’t quit this. And when I saw that Rebekah Anast had given blanket permission to reprint her entire letter, I simply couldn’t resist the temptation. I have to address this letter point-by-point and in the most thorough manner I can muster – because seriously, there are far better ways to secure family unity than beating the crap out of your children.

Background: Rebekah Anast (nee Pearl) is the oldest daughter of child-training gurus Michael and Debi Pearl. The, uh, disciplinary techniques advocated by the Pearls are controversial and have been tied to at least two deaths. (For more information, check out my previous post on this subject.)

At some point in 2006, presumably in response to the media scrutiny her parents faced following the death of four-year-old Sean Paddock, Rebekah Anast wrote an open letter defending Michael and Debi Pearl.

My name is Rebekah Anast, I am the firstborn daughter of Michael and Debi Pearl, the authors of the best-selling book To Train Up a Child.

A handful of angry people have begun an outcry against Michael and Debi Pearl for the child-training principles in this book. These nay-sayers have also struck out against The Old Schoolhouse Magazine for refusing to reject the teaching of “the Pearls.” Along with quoting out of context, verbalized anger, and false assumptions, they have attacked those associated with the Pearl family, and threatened to shake the fragile platform of homeschooling in the UK by going to the media with the sensational story that certain UK homeschool groups are hosting the infamous Michael and Debi Pearl.

There are so many avenues I could explore in deconstructing these opening paragraphs, but I’ll confine myself to one: Sean Paddock’s adoptive mother suffocated him in a blanket - this blanket thing was to be an innovative form of punishment - after "chastising" him using the method and instrument discussed in the book she was reading.

That isn’t a “false assumption,” and nor do critics have to risk taking any of the Pearls’ statements out of context when the comments on record are already disturbing enough when presented in context.

Damn right critics should have warned homeschoolers in the UK, as well as the general public, about the dangers associated with following the Pearls’ child-rearing advice.

They advocate, among other things, beating toddlers with an instrument; beating children until they’re breathless and “broken”; orchestrating infractions that allow parents to entrap children and beat them for giving in to temptation. I could go on – and I will shortly.

In every society there are “movers and shakers,” those people who call the media, make the stories (or the stink, as the case may be) and bring about changes that affect the thousands of ambivalent and, often clueless, masses. Some of these movers and shakers have the good of the masses in mind, others are simply angry, irrational people that need attention and like to make a scene. Unfortunately, the media thrives on these sensation-makers, and is quick to poison the waters of truth if the poison is offered on the silver platter of a “hot story.”

Indeed – but most of Rebekah's criticisms are without merit because many of the claims about her parents also happen to be true.

What I find interesting here is that a mere three paragraphs into her letter, Rebekah has used some variation of the term “angry” to tar critics on three separate occasions. It’s as if she believes anger itself is a sin, even when most people would see an angry response as entirely justified.

The allegation against her parents was (and is) counseling brutal child abuse. The abuse of vulnerable people is supposed to make people angry.

It’s understandable that Rebekah would blast people for deliberately twisting what her parents teach, at least in her view, but it’s just plain weird that she would condemn critics for being angry.

How do we combat the irrational and unfounded sensationalism that would poison the waters of our communities? With truth. If the media wants a story, give them the truth. Let them know that we are very aware of the lies and sensation being spread - but that we’re not afraid of it, because we know the truth.

Michael and Debi Pearl openly counsel striking infants with a rod. That’s not an unfounded accusation; it’s the plain truth. They said this. It’s in their book. It’s on their website. They don’t deny it.

When media outlets report this fact, they are reporting the truth. When people are angered by this fact, they’re responding to the truth.

These sensational story-tellers say that Michael and Debi Pearl teach child abuse, the subjection of women, and general injustice.

They do. Debi Pearl is also the author of a book called Created to Be His Helpmeet. In it, she says quite plainly that wives are to submit to their husbands in everything but sin. That is the subjection of women. Rebekah might define subjection in a way other than how the dictionary defines it, but that isn’t the fault of her parents’ critics.

I would know (I am their daughter) whether their techniques are violent and unjust, or loving and temperate.

How? Rebekah was raised by two people who believe striking infants with a rod is an appropriate ‘child-training’ technique, and who openly admit to breaking their children down. She wouldn’t know right from wrong even if someone drew her a diagram.

Here's a good example: Striking infants with a rod is wrong. It’s an over-reaction to a misunderstanding – i.e., that the cries of a baby are willful disobedience/manipulation – and it’s a gross abuse of parental authority.

Rebekah doesn’t recognize such abuse as wrong, and so obviously she’s not a good judge of whether a particular disciplinary technique is violent.

I would know if the result is an emotionally damaged and fearful child, or a creative, successful, happy adult.

…or a dead child. That’s been the result at least twice that we know of in the space of six years. Or maybe the result will be a physically damaged child, which has probably happened dozens of times since the publication of that stupid book. (Zariah Schatz is merely the latest case that the public knows about.)

I would know, yes, better than any one of these angry people, whether Michael and Debi Pearl are barbaric child abusers, or loving, successful parents.

There’s that word again. Angry. It’s a testament to how she was trained that Rebekah considers that a flaw.

Every type of abuse leaves evidence to prove its occurrence, whether it be a mark on the spirit or the body.

…or organ failure. Or death.

Let me give you the evidence that is me:

Oh, there’s so much low-hanging fruit I could grab here…so, so much. I’ll limit myself to just one: Rebekah is having her next baby at home, without the help of any trained people, because her husband decreed that he will be the "mid-wife." She's cool with this because...well...her own judgment on these matters is compromised by her tiny woman-brain and so it's a far better thing that she give her husband charge over such matters. He thinks delivering how own baby without any outside help is a super-awesome idea. She's been taught to follow the leader without question.

Hopefully she doesn't end up like this woman.

I am 32 years old, married and the mother of three children. I am the happiest person I know, and my life is full of fruit; my own three very happy, balanced children who are completely sound in body and mind.

Damn tootin’, because I suspect the beatings at her childhood home continued until happiness was the only approved emotion that Rebekah could feel. That’s why she has such a hate-on for “angry” people.

I have written articles, books, screenplays, and traveled the world for 4 years, meeting new people, eating new food, ministering to those in need, and loving life. I always returned to my favorite place and my favorite people... my family.

I married a wonderful man who is worth every moment of reverence and honor I give him; he is my best friend and only lover.

I have very few bad memories of childhood, all of which I can recall clearly; my dog dying, my hand getting cut on a fresh pine board, my brother being stung by bees, and my father’s grief over a friend’s suffering. That’s all that I can recall.

That’s because, as you’re about to see, Rebekah has redefined the term “bad” damn near out of existence. For example, she doesn’t consider spanking “bad” because it was necessary and it taught her something.

I remember only one spanking. I remember it because I laughed all the way through it, and so did my Dad. I had played a prank that was dangerous, but funny, and fully deserved a spanking for it, but my parents were unable to spank me without laughing. That is the only spanking I clearly remember. The others were so well-deserved my conscience was able to write off the memory once the deed was paid for.

That’s interesting, because despite her remembering only one spanking – an occasion when she and her father laughed while she was being whipped with a switch – she somehow knows the ritual that took place all the other times she was spanked. Observe:

I was never injured in body or spirit by the training I received. I was never “struck” in anger. I did receive non-injurous spankings on my fully clothed backside with a willow switch when I had clearly transgressed a known “law” of the house. These spankings did not leave bruises or abrasions, or emotional distress.

So, um, well, she either doesn’t remember those spankings and is basing her description of them on what her parents told her, in which case she wouldn’t know whether the spankings caused emotional distress or not, or she’s…how can I put this…not being entirely honest about remembering only one instance of corporal punishment.

I learned by the gentlest way possible that foolishness has consequences and wise choices make life comfortable.

Rebekah learned that foolishness results in being whipped. That’s not the natural consequence of foolishness; it’s an artificial consequence that teaches a child nothing useful about how cause and effect work in the real world.

For example…

Cause: You ate some cookies in secret that spoiled your appetite for dinner. Effect: You get the cold left-overs for breakfast. Cause: You didn’t go directly to sleep at bed-time, but insisted on fooling around. Effect: You go to school tired the next day, but you’re damned-well going. Cause: You lipped off to mom. Effect: No allowance. An employer in the real world would fire you for sass like that. Cause: You did something dangerous that could result in injury or death. Effect: You get spanked. The pain of that is but a pale shadow of the pain you’d feel upon surviving bodily contact with a moving vehicle; and spanking is the closest safe approximation to a real-life consequence for the risk you took that it’s the right choice.

If you whip – not merely spank, mind you, but whip – a kid for something minor like fooling around or fiddling with a light-switch, you’re not teaching him anything about consequences except that violation of a house rule will result in a parent five times his size causing him physical pain to secure future compliance. The Pearls’ method is ridiculous and unimaginative at best. At worst, it’s truly deadly.

This training has literally saved my life and I am eternally grateful to both my parents for using a literal rod to train my flesh to make wise choices.

How did the training “literally” save her life? Lots of other kids survived childhood without being hit by cars or electrocuted despite never having been belted. The mere fact of Rebekah’s survival into adulthood is not proof that her parents did right in striking her with an instrument.

My brothers and sisters were my best friends growing up. We did everything together; swimming, playing, working. We usually got in trouble together too, and when spankings were due, they were due all around. However, trouble was hard to find, as either Mom or Dad was almost always with us, joining in the fun, the projects, and the learning. From dancing in the rain, to building forts, to learning to ride a bike; they were there, so much a part of my life.

A person is innocent until proven guilty. I have proof that Michael and Debi Pearl are wise and loving parents: I am the proof, and every one of my siblings would agree with me.

Almost everything we (my parents) have ever written is available online for FREE on nogreaterjoy.org; and everything else is as inexpensive as possible while still allowing No Greater Joy to operate as a non-profit organization, geared toward helping thousands of parents and children.

Yes, and that’s where critics got so much ammo against the Pearls.

I think no one doubts that the Pearls’ believe their methods are best. As a result, I also don’t doubt that the Pearls are as dumb as a box of rocks and shouldn’t ever be giving anyone advice on child-reading.

A lot of information about the Pearls on the internet is simply taken out of context or completely misquoted. Look up the quotes on nogreaterjoy.org for yourself and make sure your source isn’t lying or misconstruing the truth.

On this point, I completely agree with Rebekah. Do go to the No Greater Joy website and read those articles for yourself. And don’t just read the ones on child-rearing either. Gather a nice cross-section of them – like, for example, this one, where Michael Pearl castigates a grieving mother for selfishness.

A good, long look at the site should give you an excellent idea as to what the Pearls are like as people.

It’s important to the homeschool movement that we be accountable for our views, instead of blindly following the loudest sensationalist, or giving them credibility of any kind.

Ah yes – accountability, I wonder when Michael Pearl, who met the latest round of criticism by flatly denying that he condones corporal punishment, will be held accountable for his dangerous views.

Rebekah (Pearl) Anast

I give full permission to reprint or repost this article in its entirety in any format.

Done.

Michael Pearl: Responsible for Child-Murder - Again

2010-02-25T11:47:00.012-07:00

I recently read about the case of a seven-year-old girl, Lydia, who was beaten to death by her parents. Her older sister, Zariah, landed in the ICU with severe and life-threatening injuries.

Lydia’s crime: mispronouncing a word. Zariah was nearly killed for lying – ah yes, lying; that will become a major theme later in this article – and for being a “bad influence” on her younger sister. (It probably didn’t help that she and her sister were two of three siblings adopted from an orphanage in Liberia.)

Both girls were whipped so hard and so long that they suffered organ failure.

The case made international headlines in part because the accused, Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz, had used a quarter-inch plumbing supply line to terrorize all their children; and in part because this disciplinary method, which they learned from reading a child abuse manual, has been linked to at least one other death in the past.

The Schatzes were Christian fundamentalists who homeschooled their nine children and believed that extreme corporal punishment – in this case, with an instrument, and starting at infancy – was mandated by God.

They got this fucked up idea by reading To Train Up a Child, a book on parenting that teaches, among other things, that infants who cry are engaging in willful rebellion and need to be smacked with a rod to correct their bad behavior.

This 1994 how-to manual on torture was so popular that the authors, Michael and Debi Pearl, who currently run a wildly misnamed non-profit organization called “No Greater Joy Ministries,” managed to spin their success into a magazine.

To give you a sense of what their book is like, here’s a direct quote: “For the under-one-year-old, a little, 10- to 12-inch long, willowy branch (stripped of any knots that might break the skin) about one-eighth inch diameter is sufficient…”

Nearly a thousand people on Amazon.com have reviewed this book, and 513 of those people gave it one star out of a possible five – and that, only because a ‘zero’ rating is impossible.

The negative reviews often contain either citations or direct quotes from the book. R. Craig, for example, wrote the following:

2) On p.60 they recommend whipping babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them "to get up." On p.61 they recommend whipping a 12 month old girl for crying. On p.79 they recommend whipping a 7 month old for screaming.

3) On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a 15 month old she is babysitting, 10 separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with. On p.56 Debi Pearl hits a 2 year old so hard "a karate chop like wheeze came from somewhere deep inside."

4) On p.44 they say not to let the child's crying while being hit to "cause you to lighten up on the intensity or duration of the spanking." On p.59 they recommend whipping a 3 year old until he is "totally broken."

If you’re not content merely with reading what reviewers think of Michael and Debi Pearl, however, then check out their own website. It’s a gold-mine of cruel and stupid advice on child-rearing.

From an October 2009 article by Debi Pearl, Unbinding Foolishness:

Parents usually overlook the foolishness because the child is not rebellious, mean, bitter, or hurtful to others—just silly and childlike beyond his age. Maybe that is the reason God very specifically addresses this area of ugly childhood behavior and tells parents exactly how to respond. God says, “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”

Later: “As a child grows, his unrestrained foolishness will progress from amusing to irritating to embarrassing. You wish you could just shut the door and hide his behavior, and many parents eventually do shut the door, so to speak, on their foolish, stupid clown of a kid.”

It’s not surprising that she would describe a rambunctious but harmless kid as stupid. Earlier in the article, she uses the term “whiny sissy” to describe a toddler looking for attention.

(Since she’s such a fan of unflattering descriptions, I have one for Debi Pearl that fits perfectly: Nasty, hateful bitch. “Cloaca” works, too.)

Debi’s advice on how to handle an “irresponsible” toddler: “If you catch him acting silly or irresponsible, then rebuke and spank as needed to produce sobriety.”

Michael Pearl, who is himself a black hole of seething hatred for children, offers his own advice on how to handle disobedient kids:

When I suspected that the child was giving half-hearted obedience, I instinctively went after it as if it were overt rebellion. You must cause the child to let go of all expressions of defiance. Demand that the little one surrender her very body language and every gesture to authority. Go after the attitude. In the “light switch” situation, I would say, “Leave the light switch alone.” If there is a moment’s hesitation, any sign of delayed compliance, rise immediately and give her hand (the offending hand) two or three licks with a small switch….After such an episode, to confirm that she has yielded completely, give her several other commands not related to the immediate situation. Put her through a brief “drill” to certify your authority and her submission

Remember, parents: the welfare of your children is as nothing when compared to your own convenience.

To be fair, however, Mikey doesn't always recommend pain. He's also a fan of passive aggression. From an article called "Emotional Manipulators," published in 1995:

The four-year-old girl seemed to be pouty and moody. For a while, she just watched the other children having fun, but didn't participate. She was the smallest and often couldn't keep up. After a time, making an attempt to chase after the others, she fell on the thick carpet of grass. She immediately began to scream…"Poor child." The mother, drawn by the desperate, defiant screams, did what all mothers are expected to do, she sympathetically rushed to her "wounded" child. The four-¬year-old psychologist was well aware that, with others looking on, the mother's reputation was at stake.

Though it was not outwardly visible, I knew that the mother was irritated at her child. She didn't really feel sympathetic. She was probably thinking something like this: "What's wrong with the little brat now? She's such a crybaby. I know she is not really hurt. Why does she pretend to be?"

I just want to pause here for a moment to point out what a remarkable man Michael Pearl is. Not only can he read minds, but he can also look into the past to see how this girl behaves every other day.

With his fearsome psychic powers, Pearl discovers that this particular mother actually hates her child, and only "pretends" to be concerned for the kid's welfare.

He goes on to say this: “The mother, in this situation, actually doesn't like her child. This causes her to feel inadequate because she knows that her attitude renders her unfit to properly mother her own child.”

In-fucking-credible.

He recommends that a mother in that situation should ignore her screaming child unless the noise becomes too inconvenient, at which point, the parent should give the child a teaspoon of vinegar to cure what ails her.

Now don’t get me wrong: Coddling a kid will weaken her. Rewarding drama with lavish attention will only lead to more drama. Giving a frustrated kid some constructive way to deal with her problem, however, will do a lot to mitigate whining.

Giving her a spoonful of foul-tasting passive-aggression will accomplish precisely nothing in the long run - except perhaps to make the parent feel powerful and
"in control," which is all that really matters.

But hey, I guess it’s a lot better than beating the kid to death.

When Michael Pearl was called out for his role in this murder, he evaded responsibility by telling an outright lie:

We do not teach 'corporal punishment' nor 'hitting' children," Michael Pearl, CEO of No Greater Joy Ministries, wrote in an emailed statement to The Post. "We teach parents how to train their children, which sometimes requires the limited and controlled application of a spanking instrument to hold the child's attention on admonition

"If indeed these parents were abusive, and that has not yet been proven by the courts, it is regretful that our teachings were not able to turn them from their predisposition to abusive habits," he stated.

That's quite the fib, there. Perhaps Mikey should be beaten until his kidneys fail.

When Amanda Marcotte posted the story of Lydia’s death on her blog, Pandagon.net, it touched off a debate in the comments about the merits of spanking. As Marcotte noted, however, that’s not even the point.

This isn’t a story about the merits of spanking versus time-outs. It’s a story about how a collective of irresponsible individuals – Michael and Debi Pearl included – have adopted the view that children are evil little monsters who deserve to be hurt badly at every opportunity.

And what’s even more galling is that practically everyone who supports the Pearls also claims to be pro-life, because children are a 'gift from God.'

MORE LOLs: Daughter Rebekah Anast's 2006 letter defending her parents, Michael and Debi Pearl.

SHORTER: "A handful of angry naysayers are angry at my parents because they can't raise their own children to be as happy and not-angry as me. I can't even remember most of the beatings I got, because they were so well-deserved that my conscience simply blacked them out after I paid my debt. My parents are great, and anyone who hates what they publish is merely angry and clueless and irrational and sensationalist. A little discipline never hurt anyone."

I'm made of plastic. Isn't that fantastic?

2010-02-25T09:52:00.003-07:00

Miss Beverly Hills 2010, Lauren Ashley, was recently quoted as saying that gays should be put to death – or, as she reads it, that death is the inevitable result of homosexuality.

From News.com.au:

"The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman," Ms Ashley told Fox News.

"In Leviticus it says: 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.'

"The Bible is pretty black and white.

"I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone.

"If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that's a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life."

It’s probably no accident that many of the sites reporting on this story also include a headshot of the heavily made-up Miss Ashley with tinted hair and a bold, “come hither” look in her eyes – which brings me to the very same question I had about Carrie Prejean: How is it that a beauty pageant contestant, who puts her own flesh on the barrel, can boldly proclaim homosexuality is wrong based on Biblical proscriptions?

1 Peter 3:3-4 (ESV)

3) Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—

4) but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

1 Timothy 2:9-10 (ESV)

9) [L]ikewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,

10) but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Ashley goes on to claim she has gay friends. If that were ever true, I doubt it’s the case now. She sold them in exchange for the sort of fame Prejean got defending “opposite marriage.”

If there’s one thing the hypocritical right-wing noise machine likes, it’s eye candy that parrots the party line. Prejean didn’t lose much support when the nekkid pix – and there are always nekkid pix – inevitably surfaced. In fact, that likely increased her standing among those who recognized the power of lust (along with the usual greed) to attract new supporters.

…is [Ashley] concerned that she may ruin her chances of taking home the tiara?

"That isn't really the issue," she said.

Of course winning isn’t the issue. Now if Ashley loses, regardless of whether she was the most “qualified” to win or not, she has an excuse that will earn her a place among the martyrs – and that’s an awesome spot to be in, because it includes paid interviews and possibly a book deal where the advance is based less on talent or sales potential than on ideological synchronicity.

Truly, I say to you, Douglas Phillips has received his reward

2010-02-02T11:00:00.007-07:00

On January 30th, Doug Phillips, Vision Forum, went to Haiti on what can only be described as a self-aggrandizing media junket:

"My mission to Haiti is four-fold: First, I will be establishing one of the only distinctively Christian reporting operations to tell stories of both the present crisis and the work of Christians on behalf of the sick and the widows and the orphans in the midst of Haiti’s present horror. Second, I will be working to facilitate the rescue and delivery of orphans to Christian families in America. Third, I will be identifying specific families that need direct support from the people of God in America. Fourth, my team will be providing specific relief to people in distress."

Let's translate that mandate into plain English: Phillips' goals, in this order, are to establish a propaganda machine in Haiti, that the world may know how good he is; to engage in the trafficking of human beings, legitimized under the label of 'adoption'; to pay specific Haitian families -- most likely those with English-speaking members who can mug for the camera -- for their help in sharing Phillips' dominionist brand of Christianity; and finally -- if there's any money left -- to provide material aid for people whose lives were devastated by the earthquake.

I don't buy through Vision Forum. Ever. These white-washed tombs -- people like Doug Phillips -- should not be rewarded for their cruelty.

He closes his utterly shameless plea for cash with this statement: "Please stay tuned for our broadcasts and articles. May the Lord be pleased to use our humble efforts at this time of intense crisis."

Matthew 6

1) "Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

2) "Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.

3) But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,

4) so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

The people in Haiti are suffering greatly. Consider donating to a legitimately helpful organization. If you need help finding one, I suggest you begin your research here.

The four ways I failed a customer service guy

2009-12-27T03:13:00.004-07:00

"I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak…" -- Matthew 12:36 (ESV)

1) "If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame." -- Proverbs 18:13 (ESV)

At around midnight, I ordered some pizza for my husband and me.

It turns out that our phone was set to “night mode,” and so it hadn’t rang when the delivery driver showed up with our food. He’d called up several times, and the office itself had tried to reach us. We heard nothing.

So I called the delivery line, upset over our extremely late pizza, and snapped at a customer service guy for something that was entirely our own fault.

2) "Whoso keepeth his mouth and his tongue keepeth his soul from troubles." -- Proverbs 21:23 (KJV)

I wanted to call him back and apologize once I realized what had happened, but I didn’t know his name or have his extension. In other words – and as it usually the case when dealing unkindly with a stranger – there’s no real way to repair the damage. This leads to a guilt that cannot be directly expiated.

3) "A gentle tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness in it breaks the spirit." -- Proverbs 15:4 (ESV)

Being a customer service guy, he'd probably taken at least a dozen angry and even abusive calls throughout the night when I spoke with him. Rather than my words being a balm for his soul, however, they merely added another blow to his spirit.

4) "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person." -- Colossians 4:6 (ESV)

May God compensate the wronged man for my hasty speech, because I’ll likely never get the chance.

I’m sharing this with you as a reminder to myself as a cautionary tale for others: "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless." -- James 1:26 (ESV)

Shut up, infidel dog!

2009-12-07T17:22:00.003-07:00

So, I just read about the undoing of a man named Tedd Petruna, who may or may not be a NASA driver, but is most certainly a lying dumbass.

TMP explains what happened:

A man who claims he witnessed a "dry run" by Muslim hijackers on a plane at Atlanta's airport last month told TPMmuckraker this morning he is standing by his story, despite several holes in the tale and the carrier's claim he was not even on the plane.

In an email account of his experience that went national on right-wing blogs last week, Tedd Petruna describes a group of 11 Muslim men "in full attire" who created a disturbance on a Nov. 17 AirTran flight on the runway at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson airport.

Here’s a quote from Petruna’s e-mailed account of the “incident”:

This is where I had had enough! I got up and started to the back where I heard a voice behind me from another Texan twice my size say "I got your back." I grabbed the man who had been on the phone by the arm and said "you WILL go sit down or you Will be thrown from this plane!" As I "led" him around me to take his seat, the fellow Texan grabbed him by the back of his neck and his waist and headed out with him. I then grabbed the 2nd man and said, "You WILL do the same!"

One of Petruna’s friends, Gene Hackemack, forwarded his harrowing account with the following comment: "the muslims are all getting very brave now, since they have one of their own in the white house......read Tedd's story below."

He WILL be a laughingstock.

WorldNetDaily, Debbie Schlussel, and one of the bloggers at Glenn Beck’s 9.12 site picked up this story and ran with it as proof of the encroaching Muslim menace.

But, as it turns out, there were just a few minor problems with this guy’s tale. For one thing, he wasn’t on the flight: “AirTran says its flight manifests show Petruna had missed a connection and that he was never actually on board Flight 297.”

It’s when FARK got a hold of the story, however, that the best parts began to surface. Turns out this guy has a MySpace page – a really, really funny MySpace page complete with bad emo poetry and scattered references to World of Warcraft.

There's a lesson here for Debbie Schlussel and her fellow eliminationist genocide-lovers.

Ohhh, shock me harder, Paul Washer. Tell me how bad I am!

2009-11-15T02:51:00.017-07:00

I think there are two kinds of preachers popular in America today: those who tell you how absolutely splendid you are, and those who tell you how absolutely rotten you are. The former make a lot of money. The latter, being more earnest, simply make a lot of friends. (They don’t count their friends, of course; they only count their enemies, hoping to find themselves persecuted for Christ’s sake.)

Paul Washer first gained popularity among Southern Baptists and other assorted people when he preached a “fire and brimstone” sermon at a youth conference in 2002. One of his first brags is that he’d never be invited back. Oh, I’ve heard that claim before: “This is how you can tell that I mean what I say - because I risk not being invited back.” (Not only does he make that boast in his speech, but it’s presented for your awe right in the headline: “SHOCKING YOUTH MESSAGE STUNS HEARERS - SO SHOCKING AND BIBLICAL THE PREACHER WAS NEVER INVITED BACK”)

That reminds me of a little story I heard a few years ago. Diogenes, a philosopher of note in Ancient Greece, tromped muck across a carpet belonging to Plato. “I am stomping down Plato’s pride,” he bragged. “Yes,” said Plato; “but with pride of another kind.”

Washer goes on to talk about how most of the people hearing his sermon will end up in Hell someday because they don’t actively live as God commands even though they believe themselves to be Christians.

That’s standard Old School Baptist preaching right there – that ‘you can’t live like the Devil and expect to get into Heaven.’

But then he says this:

“He says here, as we go on, [Matthew 7] verse 16: 'You will know them by their fruits.' How will you know a false prophet? In the wider application here and all of Scripture, how will you know if someone is a genuine Christian? By their fruit. By their fruit, my dear friend. Look at your life. Look at the way you walk. Look at the way you talk. Look at the passions of your heart. Is Jesus in there somewhere? Or is He just some accessory that you add on to your life? Is He just something that you do on Wednesday or Sunday? Is He something that you give a mental assent to? Is He an accessory or is He the very center of your life? And what is the fruit that you’re bearing? Do you look like the world? Act like the world? Do you have and experience the same joys that the world experiences? Can you love sin and relish it? Can you love rebellion and relish it? Then you know not God. You will know them by their fruit. God has the power to change them.”

Washer spends a lot of time talking (and re-talking) about what Genuine Christians™ shouldn’t do – what they shouldn’t enjoy, what they shouldn’t watch, what they shouldn’t wear, what they shouldn’t say. (Even he knows better than to tell them what they shouldn’t eat, but that’s about the only area he’d leave up to individual conscience.)

Indeed the Bible does talk about Fruits of the Spirit, and Washer’s right: if you claim to believe the Bible is a sacred text and a fit guide for how to conduct your life, there are a lot of things you should not do. The Ten Commandments include eight ‘negative’ statements – thou shalt nots – and two affirmative duties (i.e., to keep the Sabbath and honor your parents).

But the Fruits of the Spirit are actually listed in the Bible, and they’re presented in terms of what a person has as opposed to what a person lacks. Instead, works of the flesh are contrasted with Fruits of the Spirit:

Galatians 5:19-23

19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Negative acts are presented in contrast to positive traits – and those positive traits – i.e., those traits that are part of a good character – are Fruits of the Spirit. (All people, everywhere, fall into the flesh-trap sometimes. Ecclesiastes 7:20 says, "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.")

That’s not all, though; there’s more. Those positive traits lead to positive actions:

Matthew 25:31-46

31) When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34) Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36) Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37) Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38) When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39) Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40) And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43) I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44) Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Ultimately, then, you’ll find the dead, dried sticks plucked from the burning and Elected to life will be made as living branches that bear good fruit, and this will be the end result:

Micah 6:8

8) He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Such a person will live by the Royal Law:

Mark 12:28-31

28) And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

29) And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

30) And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31) And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

But Washer talks almost exclusively about how people shouldn’t act – and he focuses a lot on superficiality such as what movies they watch or what music they like.

When he finally does get around to talking about the positive duties of one who professes a Christian belief, he says this:

“When I’m in Nigeria . . . I was there last year visiting a mother whose son was in our church and was martyred by the Muslims. In Northern Nigeria, when someone professes faith in Jesus Christ, you pretty much know they can die because of that profession. But in America, oh, consider the cost. Think. Examine your life in light of Scripture. Do you know the Lord? Do you know the Lord? Because not everyone who says to him, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but what does it say here? Look what it says. 'Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.'”

That talk about Nigeria – does it ever go anywhere productive? Naw. It's merely an idle boast – a segue into a discussion about his unhealthy obsession with martyrdom:

“What is the sign that someone has become a genuine Christian? I wish that we would start teaching this again. What happened to our theology? What happened to our doctrine? What happened to our teaching? It went right out the window. No one wants to study doctrine anymore. They just want to listen to songs and read the back of Christian tee shirts. What happened to truth? Truth tells you this. The evidence––the way that you can have assurance that you are genuinely a born-again Christian––is that you do, as a style of life, the will of the Father.”

Wait…he’s finally going to do it. He’s going to actually discuss the Fruits of the Spirit – right?

“I want you to know something. God is not a derelict father. If you can play around in sin, if you can love the world and love the things of the world, if you can always be involved in the world and doing things of the world, if your heroes are worldly people, if you want to look like them and act like them, if you practice the same things they practice, oh my dear friend, listen to my voice. There’s a good chance you know not God, and you do not belong to him.”

I guess that's a no.

A few thousand words later – and I’m not kidding; he goes on repeating himself for another few thousand words – he says:

“I’m talking about Christianity. I have spent my life in jungles. I have spent my life freezing in the Andes Mountains. I have seen people die. A little boy, Andrew Myman [phonetic], the Muslims shot him five times through the stomach and left him on a sidewalk simply because he cried out, 'I am so afraid but I cannot deny Jesus Christ. Please don’t kill me, but I will not deny Him.' And he died in a pool of blood. And you talk about being a radical Christian because you wear a tee shirt, because you go to a conference. I’m talking about holiness. I’m talking about Godliness.”

WHAT THE FUCK?

That’s not the first time in his sermon – or even in this far briefer article about his sermon – that Washer holds martyrdom up as a standard and a proof of Godly living.

People were killed for their beliefs even as the New Testament authors were still writing, and for their unwillingness to recant those beliefs when threatened with death. While an unwillingness to recant is listed among the qualities of a Believer (although Peter did recant: he denied Jesus three freakin' times in the space of one night, and was still forgiven), martyrdom is not. The open-faced willingness to be shot to death by marauding zealots is not a Fruit of the Spirit. The willingness to face death as a martyr might be the result of faith (in this religion or some other), or it might be the result of suicidal depression.

Here’s Matthew 7:20-23 – the very passage Washer focuses on:

20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Those people who cast out devils and prophesied and trusted in their works to save them, but were nonetheless denied entrance to paradise, would probably have been willing to die for their beliefs. I can’t emphasize this enough: some of the people denied entry into the Kingdom of Heaven had contended with demons – supernatural creatures of pure malevolence. But their willingness to play cat-and-mouse with death wasn’t enough to gain them entry. In fact, it wasn’t even on the list of qualifiers. (Again, see: Matthew 25:31-46, Galatians 5:19-23, Micah 6:8, and Mark 12:28-31)

Not only does Jesus list some of the acts that should result from even the tiniest bit of faith, but James talks about them as well:

James 2:13-20

13) For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

14) What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15) If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16) And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19) Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20) But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead.

People are willing to die for all kinds of stupid shit. The test for someone who professes a hope and a faith is this: For what are you willing to live?

“I wish––you know what a move of God would be in this place? If all of you came under conviction, if I myself came under conviction of the Holy Spirit, we fell down on our faces and wept because we watch the things that God hates, because we wear the things that God hates, because we act like the world, look like the world, smell like the world, because we do the very things, and we know not that we do these things, because we do not know the Word of God.”

It isn’t what a person sees, hears, or eats that makes him unclean; it’s what he says and does (Matt 15:11).

I think a person moved to acts of compassion and to an attitude of mercy would probably refrain from watching certain kinds of things or from listening to certain kinds of things. Washer has this bass-ackwards, though: people don’t become clean through abstinence; they abstain because they’re becoming clean. (The ability - the very desire - to become clean is a gift from God and not dependent on individual merit.)

“Oh, that God would raise up missionaries. I don’t wish the same things your parents want for you. They want for you security and insurance and nice homes. They want for you cars and respect. I want for you the same thing I want for my son, that one day he takes a banner, the banner of Jesus Christ, and he places it on a hill where no one has ever placed a banner before, and he cries out, 'Jesus Christ is Lord,' even if it costs my son his life.”

I remember Shirley Phelps Roper once saying, “There are no martyrs at Westboro Baptist Church” – and however much I disagree with some (well…many) of the things she says, I’ll always appreciate that.

It isn’t enough for Washer that his son walks orderly, does justice, and loves mercy; the boy should also go someplace no Christian has ever been before and piss all over the people living there. Surely his martyr’s blood will make that pagan hill clean. (Good Fruits? Calling all Good Fruits. Please answer the white courtesy phone in the lobby.)

“Oh, dear God, raise up missionaries here. Raise up missionaries. Raise up preachers and pastors and reachers and evangelists that know the Word of God. Oh, God, work in this place, please work in this place, dear God. Please. Please. Please. Please.”
-----------------------

Matthew 6:7

7) But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

I read that entire speech – 15 pages of closely-typed verbiage – and didn't once see where Washer lists the Fruits of the Spirit. He doesn't mention what the sheep (or good figs, or the Elect) actually do that defines them as sheep as opposed to goats.

Here's what matters: that you do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God; that you testify to the goodness of your Maker even when times are tough; that you love God and love your neighbors; that you put away the unclean thing not merely because it’s unclean, but because it conflicts with the good, meek, merciful, and upright character you hope to cultivate out of obedience and gratitude to God.

That's what matters. Go do that.

Inmates save life of deputy

2009-11-05T20:41:00.002-07:00

Story...

I used to admire John Piper, but...

2009-11-05T17:38:00.006-07:00

In August of 2009, well-known preacher John Piper fielded a question about spousal abuse. His response, for what it’s worth, can be found here.

It was disturbing just how much Piper hedged in answering the question, first by dodging it with a question of his own about "what kind of abuse," followed by a really bizarre example of how a wife can react if her husband commands her to sin (such as in asking her for “group sex”).

Huh? The question was about abuse. Why on earth would Piper begin his answer with that kind of example?

He then goes on to say, “If it’s not requiring her to sin but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, and she endures perhaps being smacked one night, and then she seeks help from the church.”

Okay, so group sex is definitely out, because the wife would be sinning in defiance of God, but if a man is “simply” hurting his wife – calling her names, slapping her around – she should stick it out until she can flee to the church (where she will no doubt be treated with kindness, as opposed to being blamed for her husband’s gross, childish lack of self-control).

What a stupid answer.

How do you (whether you're female or male) react if you're being abused? That depends: if your partner confines his actions to verbal abuse, maybe counseling will help - if he consents to go. If not, go alone. If he's physically abusive, leave him. Don't warn him. Don't present an ultimatum. Don't dawdle. Grab your personal papers and your children and LEAVE!

You wouldn't stand around in a burning house trying to negotiate with the fire. Likewise, you cannot negotiate with an abuser while you're still in danger. If you wish to reconcile, deliver your terms from afar: the offending party must get help. He must also pay what the law demands for his crime. He can't merely promise "never to do it again" or cry and manipulate his way back into your life. He has to effect real, long-term change - and even then, he cannot expect that you'll take him back.

(More...)

On the Equality of Women

2009-10-31T13:59:00.002-06:00

"Complimentarians argue that women aren’t inferior, but that they have been called upon to fill a different role – as home-makers. In supporting the religious (and sometimes legal) subjugation of women, however, Complimentarians unwittingly strip home-makers of their ability to ensure family stability."

(Full Article)

Butt-kissing for the big interview

2009-10-27T00:38:00.004-06:00

An interesting letter recently appeared on the WBC’s blog:

Hello! I’m a journalism student from Indiana & I’ve been paying attention to the actions of the WBC & the nation’s response to it for several years. I consider myself an agnostic-atheist, and often find myself defending the church’s actions. Naturally, I initially found it shocking that funerals of what many non-Christians would consider good people get protested, but I’m not going to kid myself and say you guys are the hypocrites and liars that America seems to think you are.

I consider the WBC the only true congregation of Christians, and while I personally don’t associate with any religion, I can understand that, according to the Christian bible, there is logic in everything you do. I think anyone who tries to label themselves Christians and label you hypocrites are showing nothing but ineptitude and denial.

I’m not the only person I know who feels this way, and I’ve seen many people (mostly atheists) defend your church’s actions. You’re merely doing what the bible tells you too, and while I don’t accept the bible as sacred, I have to respect that.

Thanks for reading. Maybe I’ll be interviewing you for Dateline someday.

Casandra

I agree, of course, that members of the WBC are not acting in a hypocritical fashion by protesting funerals and the like.

Casandra runs off the rails, however, in her beliefs that, a) the whole of “America” – a heterogeneous nation of which she’s a part – thinks ill of WBC; and also that b) members of the WBC are the only “true Christians” around.

Casandra, being a journalist-in-training, should look up a fallacy called “No True Scotsman.” (She should also look up the proper definition of “ineptitude.”)

Not only are members of the WBC “true Christians” but so are many thousands of other people – and that’s if one only measures the level of “true Christianity” by strict adherence to Biblical law. I’ve been studying the theonomists long enough to know WBC is not alone in its beliefs or in most of its practices.

And no – while Casandra should respect others’ religious liberties and freedom of speech, she’s under no obligation to respect their actions. I’m not entirely sure why she’s brown-nosing these folks, or how they fell for it when they’re usually a bit more attuned to these things, but the amount of butt-kissing in this letter caught my interest.

Kugelsack: A stream-of-consciousness movie review

2009-10-25T09:04:00.025-06:00

I’m a bit behind, I guess, and watched Bruno for the first time just last night. The movie drags a bit in the middle, especially when Bruno attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, but the good outweighs the bad here.

First of all, Sacha Baron Cohen created a back-story: Our intrepid title character, Bruno, hosts a successful television show in Austria. His own tastes, and those of his vacuous co-hosts, have a major influence on global fashion trends.

His luck changes dramatically, and for the worse, when he disrupts a major fashion show in Milan. His new suit, made entirely of Velcro, sticks to virtually anything. He stumbles onto the catwalk in the cocoon of modeling costumes that became stuck to his body as he tried to free himself from the stage curtain. He gets fired from his show, delisted at all the major clubs, and dumped by his assistant.

Ah yes – ‘tis a low point for Bruno. But he has an idea: He’ll go to Los Angeles and make a come-back by starring in Hollywood movies.

And this is where things start to turn ugly – and I mean that in all seriousness. This is an ugly look at human nature.

Some of the prankees – Ron Paul, for example, and a group of hunters – were, despite their blatant homophobia, surprisingly self-controlled given just how hard Cohen pushed them. (Members of the Westboro Baptist Church also made a brief appearance, but they completely ignored Cohen.)

Others weren’t nearly so benign.

While homosexuality is a dominant theme throughout the movie, there’s also an interesting B-plot: Bruno decides to buy an African baby and propel himself to stardom by putting together a photo-shoot with a collection of other fame-starved parents and their unfortunate offspring.

There is no way a mere description of the subsequent events can do this scene justice, so I’ve transcribed the whole thing:

<<BRUNO V.O.: I hired a top photographer and held a casting for the hottest baby photo-shoot ever. >>

BRUNO: We’re going to do, like, this religious thing where my baby is gonna be on a crucifix playing Jesus, even though my baby is black – so it’s very cool, huh?

DARK-HAIRED WOMAN (“DHW”): That’s cool. It’s kinda like a Madonna video.

[crosstalk]

BRUNO: Yeah, it’s really edgy. We’re turning it on its head. Why not? Come on. Whatever. So, we’re looking for two ‘thieves’ to be on the crucifixes next to my baby. Would you be ready for your baby to be strung up on a crucifix next to mine?

DHW: Fine. Yeah, I don’t mind her being up on a crucifix.

BRUNO: Sure.

<<cuts to different parent>>

BRUNO: Is your baby comfortable with bees, wasps, and hornets?

BLONDE WOMAN (“BW”): Um, George is comfortable with everything. He’s fine.

<<cuts to different parent>>

BRUNO: Is he comfortable with dead or dying animals.

BLUE SHIRT MAN (“BSM”): [Pauses briefly] Yes.

<<cuts back to DHW>>

BRUNO: Great. Amateur science?

DHW: What do you mean by that?

BRUNO: You know, some untrained people conducting scientific experiments.

DHW: [Cheerily] Oh! It should be fine.

BRUNO: You know, [unintelligible] pots of acid and that sort of thing.

DHW: Oh, okay.

BRUNO: So that’s a yes.

DHW: Yes.

<<cuts to another parent – this one with a child on her lap>>

BRUNO: Great. Is she okay with extremely rapid acceleration?

WOMAN WITH TODDLER (“WWT”): She…yes. Yes.

BRUNO: Okay. Does she always have to be in a car-seat, or can she just, like, ‘free-style’ it?

WWT: Oh, yeah, you can free-style it, put her in her car-seat – whatever.

BRUNO: If it looks better without the car-seat…

WWT: Of course.

BRUNO: …so what?

WWT: Of course. Of course.

BRUNO: You’re travelling fast. You’re not gonna to kill her.

WWT: Of course. Of course.

<<cuts to the first parent, DHW, again>>

BRUNO: Is your baby okay with antiquated heavy machinery?

DHW: Yeah, she’s fine. She’s been around [brief pause] that.

BRUNO: Would she be fine to operate them?

DHW: Yes.

BRUNO: Great.

<<cuts back to BSM>>

BRUNO: Is your baby fine with lit phosphorous?

BSM: Yes.

BRUNO: Excellent. Does he like it?

BSM: Loves it.

BRUNO: Okay.

<<cuts back to DHW again>>

BRUNO: A little touchy subject here. How much does she weigh?

BHW: She’s about 30 lbs.

BRUNO: 30 lbs.

BHW: Yes. Approximately.

BRUNO: Can Olivia lose ten points in the next week?

BHW: In the next week. Seven days. [Pauses] Yeah, I’d have to do whatever I could.

BRUNO: If there’s a problem losing the weight, would you be ready to have Olivia undergo liposuction?

BHW: If that was a last resort and she didn’t lose the few pounds, then yeah. I’d have to do that.

BRUNO: Great. Fantastic news. We’ve chosen your baby to be dressed as a Nazi officer pushing a wheelbarrow, with another baby as a Jew in it, into an oven.

BHW: Into an oven.

BRUNO: Congratulations. How do you feel?

BHW: Great, if she got the job! It’s…it’s great.

BRUNO: Yeah.

I think some of the parents were merely clueless and a little sun-struck: they would have agreed to anything Cohen proposed on the mistaken assumption he’d provide adequate safeguards for their children during any kind of photo-shoot. They didn’t ask a lot of questions.

And then there’s DHW, an entirely different sort of creature. To recap:

“Can we tie your baby to a cross?”

“Sure.”

“Can we have her exposed to amateurs playing with acid?”

“No problem.”

“Can you force her to drop a third of her body weight within the next week? And if not, can we do surgery on your child?”

“Yeah, I’m cool with that.”

“Great. You’ve got the job. Your daughter will be dressed as a Nazi who's pushing another kid into an oven.”

“Score!”

Ahem. Well then. Moving along,

Bruno eventually becomes convinced the only way he’ll make it big in Hollywood is by going straight, so he turns to the church for help. His first point of contact is a gentle, misguided, and deeply unfortunate man named Jody Trautwein. When Bruno proves too much for Trautwein, the pastor sends him to a demented, misogynistic closet-case named Paul Cameron. (Click here for the video.)

(Not mentioned in the movie is the fact Cameron believes gay sex is so much more satisfying than sex with those icky woman that most guys would be gay if the social pressure against it were removed. The more you know - 'cause knowledge is power!)

The movie's...um...climax is a homoerotic cage match - a scene with more genuine artistic merit than anything else in the film. Producers told the venue owners what was planned, but information about the true nature of "Straight Dave" was withheld from attendees - Arkansas natives who paid a $5 cover-charge for the chance to watch a cage match where beer was only a buck a glass. (If it were more expensive, I doubt they would have chucked so much of it at Cohen later in the scene.)

While Straight Dave goes on about how manly and heterosexual he is, some guy - an audience plant - screams "fagot!" Dave challenges him to a cage fight that begins with great brutality. After a few punches, however, Cohen and his plant shift gears and start kissing. They rip their clothes off and strike a few sexual poses.

The crowd starts howling for blood and hurling objects into the ring.

Earlier in the movie, Cohen insults an actual Muslim terrorist leader right to his face. The terrorist boots him out, brusquely, but doesn't do Cohen any physical harm. Hecklers at the cage match are far less restrained.

(Some of the attendees literally wanted to kill Cohen for the stunt.)

Some gay rights groups objected to the movie because Cohen crammed pretty much every gay stereotype he could think of into his character. Indeed, Bruno is predatory; not merely flamboyant, but also self-centered and unconcerned with the boundaries of others.

And yet despite this, there were some people willing to take any amount of crap from him in their own quests for fame. Others, meanwhile, simply hated him for being gay, full stop.

In a strange twist, the terrorist was one of only two guys in the whole movie that hated Bruno simply for his being an asshole. The other was Bruno's Hollywood agent. They disliked him for how he treated them; for what he said and did that showd disrespect for them personally - and yet despite their hatred, they both demonstrated a certain amount of benevolence towards Bruno.

A terrorist and a Hollywood agent.

We live in a really strange world.

MORE:

Bamboo Review

"The Conservative Bible Project" - LOL!

2009-10-20T02:35:00.008-06:00

This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen. Ever.

And no, it’s not a joke.

Andy Schlafly, son of professional harridan Phyllis Schlafly, has decided the King James Version of the Bible is too liberal and has thus set about creating a shiny new conservative “translation” – except that his grasp of ancient Hebrew and Greek is shaky at best, assuming he can read in either language, and so he must stick to paraphrasing the existing English text and changing words that offend his Republican sensibilities. (It's kind of like the Jefferson Bible, but for self-aggrandizing morons.)

He asked other contributors on Conservapedia, the vanity site he founded several years ago, to help with his Conservative Bible Project by matching their expertise against his home-spun principles for a proper translation.

Here’s one of those principles:

Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities.

That turdlet gives excellent insight into how Andy’s “mind” works: Everything is political, including wordiness (which is a bad thing, and therefore a liberal trait).

Oh, and we also learn the term “word-to-substance ratio” is an acceptable alternative to plain old “wordiness” - probably because Andy hates using any word, no matter how apt or concise, more than once in a sentence.

Okay, here’s another principle:

Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms.

Utilize? Oh no, not overly wordy at all – and, in this context, “powerful” is merely an empty buzzword as well. Hypocrite, heal thyself.

Then there’s this:

Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level.

Concision usually makes things easier to read, not harder. If the language is clear and accurate, people at almost every reading level will be able to grasp the basics.

One more thing:

Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census.

Casting lots (as mentioned in the Bible) was not always, or even usually, the equivalent of gambling. Holy shit, Andy, but you’re a stupid man.

I think part of the reason more professional translators haven't weighed in on his effort yet is because they're still too busy laughing. Or crying. Because Andy Schlafly is a useless idiot who somehow managed to fail his way into the public eye.

Snyder Damage Award Overturned

2009-09-27T19:57:00.003-06:00

Story here...

Steven Anderson vs. the Law, Part 3

2009-08-26T18:05:00.002-06:00

His parishioners are packing heat at political rallies now. Oh fuuuuuuuuck you, Steven Anderson. Get your idiot flock under control and stop preaching violence before someone gets hurt.

Dumbest Anti-Gay Rant Ever? You Decide

2009-07-08T14:54:00.004-06:00

Hahaha! May I present 'Pastor' Leroy Swailes' argument against gay marriage:

Now when I was growing up, here, sex was only between a male and a female. Now, it’s between Adam and Adam, Eve and Eve, which I can’t understand. They’re talking about discrimination and equal rights, okay. The thing about it is you have rights and you have human rights, but you have inhuman rights. If a man deals with another man, and a woman deals with another man, that’s considered…it’s inhuman.

So me as a man, that deals with the opposite sex, I don’t see how you can put the two together; you have to separate them. Once you separate them, that would be discrimination, because discrimination is a negative and a positive. Me as a black man, when they discriminate against me – I came out of my mother’s womb, like I didn’t have a choice. That was a negative discrimination. If you discriminate against a homosexual, that’s a positive. Why? Because it’s a choice.

You got people they call pedophiles. Then you got pedophilia. What is pedophilia? It’s when your deception is Adam and Adam, Eve and Eve and you’re going to look in the eyes of a child, and you’re going to tell a child that sex is between Adam and Adam, Eve and Eve – you become a pedophile.

These books here…these books here where they talk about ‘King and King’ and this prince marrying another prince, is a pedophile book. This book here, that says ‘Heather and Heather,’ is a pedophile book. Pedophilia. This book here that talks about ‘daddy’s roommate’ is a pedophile book, This book here that talks about, ‘All Families Are Different’ [unintelligible] you have, let’s say, God’s family, which is a natural family, then you have the anti-Christ family.

Either you’re Christ or you’re anti-Christ. Make your decision what you’re going to be; you cannot be both. But if you can look in the eyes of a child and tell a child they have a choice to be heterosexual or homosexual, you have a serious problem.

Now we’re back to discrimination and human rights; everybody should have human rights. But you have to be human. Human means you deal with the opposite sex. That’s by nature. That’s a blueprint. If there’s a plan, there’s a plan. If there’s a design, there’s a design. That’s the way the planet was designed. We cannot change the cycle of life.

That’s just like oxygen comes from plants. It goes up into the air. It mixes with molecules that was in the air, then comes down and hits mother earth. When it penetrates [unintelligible] mother earth, we have what? We have life. Homosexuality destroys that. It would be extinction of the human race.

If you go back 5000 years, and do the research like I have – 86 civilized cultures; it was the death of their cultures, why? Because they gave into strange sex…strange sex…they gave into strange flesh - the same sex - which is a form of bestiality. Why is it a form of bestiality? Because a beast has four legs and one gender. If you put two men together, you have four legs and two penises – still one gender. That’s a form of bestiality. That’s what we’re accepting here. If we put Adam…Eve and Eve together, two vaginas is still one gender. That’s a form of bestiality. We have to separate it. And when you separate something, you’re discrimination (sic).

If I put a glass of water here, and a glass of poison, which one are you going to choose? You’re going to choose the water. That’s discrimination. If you put a heterosexual girl here, and a homosexual girl, I’m going to choose the heterosexual. That’s discrimination.

Discrimination is a negative and a positive. In order to have a future with our children and everything, the word ‘discrimination’ has to come in to protect children.

I cannot look in the eyes of a child and tell the child you have a choice to be heterosexual or homosexual. That would make me a sadist. So what is a sadist? A sadist is someone that distorts sex. Sex is only between a male and a female, and if somebody comes along and changes that, they become a sadist. Now I don’t practice Satanism. And we as a city, DC, we got to realize that you got to discriminate against something that’s inhuman.

Thank you very much.

This is what happens when a half-wit gets a hold of already poor arguments against marriage equality.

The runner whom the race outran…

2009-06-26T00:33:00.006-06:00

Like Elvis Presley before him, Michael Jackson died too soon, and pitifully, after having undergone an embarrassing public transformation from the pop genius he once was into the twisted, fame-poisoned leech he became.

He had money. He had fame. But he never, never got to just...live.

Steven Anderson vs. The Law (part two)

2009-04-19T20:16:00.005-06:00

Here's an interesting collection of news stories and commentary on the "Anderson Saga."
Anderson finds Taser wires in his car.
Check out some other apparent instances of police brutality here and here. I'm posting these as proof that, yes, it can happen to you.

These situations may be the results of poor training, a lack of respect for just how much damage a taser can do, under-staffing, lack of procedural direction, and, occasional, assholery among the police.

Pissing Pastor Steven Anderson vs. The Law

2009-04-17T18:07:00.004-06:00

Anderson’s critics claim he should have complied, since he had nothing to hide, or called his attorney during the hour he spent locked in his car at the checkpoint. I can only agree with them on the latter point.

Anderson did have a right to refuse the search. He did have a right to withhold personal information. He does have a right to legal representation, and to copies of any recordings of the incident.

And if I were his wife, I’d be just as pissed off as she is. I would use every resource at my disposal to ensure justice is done. Unfortunately, she’s turned down the wrong path with her instigation of harassment – which is essentially what it boils down to when she names individual officers, gives their direct numbers, and exhorts blog readers to call them and complain.

Let the media and the lawyers handle this. But keep an eye on this situation, people, because our vigilance will go a long way towards preserving rights and securing justice.

Of particular interest to me is the role tasers played in this unfortunate saga. Follows of Pam’s House Blend will be very familiar with police abuse of the taser, and how over-use of this “less lethal” weapon has led to a number of unnecessary deaths.

New link

2008-11-04T15:09:00.003-07:00

"Running From Hell" - a look back by Nate Phelps on living with the "Most Hated Family In America."

BONUS: First response to the article is by his estranged sister, Shirley Phelps Roper.

WTF?

2008-08-11T09:42:00.004-06:00

Maybe a member of the WBC would like to step forward and explain what the hell this (PDF) fucktarded exchange was all about. (Link goes to back-story and full transcript.)

To watch the YouTube video of this stupidity, click here.

EDIT: Commenter Andy believes the entire video to be a hoax. I disagree. If any of you is interested in shedding some light on this subject either way, this thread is open for discussion.

Shut Up, Citizen! Part Two

2008-08-10T03:32:00.005-06:00

A few days ago, I received a message from Global News asking for my opinion on the WBC and its scheduled protests in Canada.

(I'd been hiding under a rock for awhile, and wasn't aware picketers were scheduled to come. After I got the mail, I went to the WBC's website in search of the press release, but actually glossed right over the thing.)

Dear Mr. K____:

I live in ______, Alberta, and I support the WBC’s right to peacefully protest outside funerals and other events. I do not agree with Fred Phelps’ message, however, and nor do I think it’s likely that members of his church will actually set foot in Canada. [Correction: I was wrong.]

Our anti-hate speech laws are such that the WBC’s signage would probably be confiscated at the border pursuant to Section 319 (Parts One and Three) of the Criminal Code of Canada. WBC members allege this has happened in the past, which is one reason why they maintain a website called “GodHatesCanada.com”

I assume you’ve received a press release from the WBC claiming that church members will come here, though I’ve yet to see such a document myself; and I’ll further assume, since church members keep abreast of the news, that they’re threatening to protest Tim McLean’s funeral. (They sent out a press release on July 31 castigating other passengers on the bus where he was killed for failing to intervene.)

If that’s the case, my statement is as follows:

The murder of Tim McLean was a tragedy that shocked us all, and most people were doubly appalled at the brutal and random nature of the crime. My sympathies go out to the family of the victim, and to those who were nearby when he was killed.

The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, represents the ultimate test of our commitment to free speech: Church members publish an unpopular message, and they choose the most emotional times and places to air their beliefs. Nonetheless, they should have the right to carry their signs and sing their jingles on any public thoroughfare they wish, regardless of the activity taking place on private property nearby.

Only in preserving freedom for unpopular speech can we, as Canadians, guarantee our own descendants that right.

If you have any more questions, feel free to call me at ____.

Sincerely,

A. Martin
Therighttobewrong.net

Shut Up, Citizen!

2008-08-10T03:28:00.002-06:00

I just watched “What Would Jesus Buy?”

What I found most interesting about that documentary is how violently some people reacted to the simple message put out by “Reverend Billy” and his choir. At one point, the cameras captured a couple of cops shaking their heads. They could be seen through a broken window on Billy’s bus.

A lot of folks seemed to object to Billy’s use of the First Amendment in spreading a simple message: ‘Stop shopping. Rampant consumerism is killing the West.’

I could draw only one conclusion:

Most – not all, but most – of those who claim to have a problem exclusively with the WBC are lying. The truth is, a majority of people have a problem with any speaker and any message that interrupts routine. They have a problem with anyone who confronts them about the morality of certain acts.

“Reverend Billy” and the WBC are very different from one another in both manner and message, but public hostility is the same regardless. A funeral, a mall, a Starbucks, a showing of the Laramie Project, a Wal-Mart – it doesn’t matter. If a protest is seen as inconvenient, a lot of people will react with hostility towards it no matter what the protest is about or where it’s taking place.

Don’t protest at a funeral. We’re grieving.

Don’t protest at the mall. We’re shopping.

Don’t protest when we’re holding a sensitive political event. We’re networking.

In fact, don’t protest at all. Just buy some more stuff and shut the hell up.

The Arsonist

2008-08-02T18:47:00.003-06:00

Just last night, an arsonist set fire to one of the buildings on the Westboro Baptist Church grounds. An enterprising YouTuber caught the tail end of this crime on tape, and rightly castigated the criminal for such stupidity.

At first blush, it looks like the arsonist was trying to burn the garage in which the WBC’s signs are stored – trying to destroy their words with fire.

The arsonist was acting the fool, and he endangered many lives with his little stunt. He ought to be ashamed of himself. What’s more, he should turn himself in for punishment at the hands of temporal authorities while he still has the chance to make amends.

Thank God no one was hurt.

Gay Rights vs. Pederasty

2008-07-29T02:40:00.011-06:00

One anonymous commenter responded to a recent post of mine by comparing the modern gay rights movement to the practice of pederasty in the ancient world.

The original Gay movement was pretty much openly pro- er what do we call it now? Pederasty?

The Greeks never had a “gay movement” in the modern sense. Certain forms of pederasty were merely an accepted part of that ancient culture. Most Greek men delayed marriage until at least the age of 30, and so they treated pederasty as an opportunity for sexual release, and as a bonding rite between themselves and their apprentices. Pederasty was a form of social union that practically ensured a younger male would be educated and trained to a profession by an older male.

There was nothing of equality about it. In Greek society, men didn’t marry other men; they used boys for pleasure, and paid for it through offerings of education and security, until they were considered of a fit age to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Because it was so deeply ingrained in their society, straight men – those who enjoyed the company of women, preferring it to the company of men or boys – would still engage in pederasty. The Greeks saw women as inferior, after all.

The concept of “informed consent” didn’t enter into their minds when they had sexual contact with boys, any more than at entered their minds when older men married girls in their early teens.

And you, Anonymous @ 11:19 PM, are in no position to condemn the ancient Greeks, since you don’t understand the concept of “consent” either.

Wealthy men used young boys as "blowjob givers" an accepted part of society. Are we supposed to believe that every single one of these men were "born genetically homosexual"?

Uh, no. I believe they were acting the parts assigned them by a society that not only accepted pederasty, but practically demanded it in some contexts.

My understanding is that ancient Greeks found the idea of butt-sex demeaning. The “bottom” in such a situation would be penetrated, like some icky woman, and no self-respecting Greek man would want that – except for the rare homosexual who might seek the companionship of another man his own age for sex that violated the rules.

Men with wives (sometimes multiple) and children, and blowjob-boys, and blow-job girls, and concubines, and prostitutes, and sex-slaves.

So what?

Do you honestly believe the modern gay rights movement is in some way related to the acceptance of pederasty in the ancient world – that homosexuals agitating for marriage equality now are like the men who sought sexual congress with people they considered their social inferiors?

You’re missing the main difference between the modern gay rights movement and the ancient practice of socially sanctioned pederasty: CONSENT!

Was that "liberated sexuality"? After all prostitute was a high-paying and nearly respectable job. Do you want your daughter or son being a high-paid prostitute?

Women and men who work in the sex trade are in constant danger of exploitation, even as many boys undoubtedly were in the pederast relationships of ancient Greece; and even as many prostitutes and concubines were from that era to this one – so no, I wouldn’t want my kids to be put in harm’s way like that.

The recognition that a homosexual is entitled to the same rights as everyone else, and that he should be permitted to marry the consenting partner of his choice, is in no way related to prostitution.

That is the context Christian anti-homosexuality must be seen in. And lying that people are "born gay" or "born straight" won't help it.

Lying – that’s an awfully strong word, since “lie” implies that the people making these claims don’t believe them. Lots of gays report having always felt "different" from other people. Are they lying when they state the belief they were born gay?

…or are you lying when you claim they weren’t born gay, absent any first-hand or academic knowledge on the subject?

Even if God doesn't hates fags, most everyone else does.

Human and civil rights shouldn’t depend on popular opinion, dumbass.

Look at the places where the Bible is not a major part of culture: China, Japan, India, South East Asia. Are they great lovers of gays? No.

Guess who else they oppress in most of those places? Women. Are women unnatural? Undeserving of rights? Lots of people seem to think so – including certain folks in our own culture.

Again, “popular opinion” is not necessarily “correct opinion.”

How in the blue fuck could you even believe otherwise?

THAT [the situation in Australia] is pagan free sex culture in its most raw form, enhanced with modern technologies like porn and liquor. That is the context Christian anti-homosexual ideology should be seen in.

John Howard is actively discriminating against a subset of the population, based on race and geographic location, in part because there are problems in aborigine communities that his own ancestors helped create.

And the only fucking problem you see here is with the natives, as opposed to with a government that addresses the conditions created by racism with yet more racism.

This is meant in general, not specifically to this blog.

You’re an idiot – probably in general, and not just on this blog.

I've pulled a couple of posts down.

2008-07-27T02:28:00.005-06:00

I've altered my website, as well as this page, to more properly reflect my view on gay rights: I'm for them.

In defending the Westboro Baptist Church, I've come to identify with them, somewhat, in part because my research on church members has humanized them for me. Unfortunately, I delved so deep that I neglected their victims - even to the point of furthering discriminatory action against gays through my rhetoric here.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals or with homosexuality. The ironic thing is, despite the fact most Christians agree with the WBC's stance towards gays, Christians are also the most likely to puke bile all over the WBC and all over me for defending their rights.

The gays, the atheists, the social outcasts - they are the ones most likely to defend rights for the WBC. Alas, church members will probably never recognize this fact; but I recognize it, and now I hope more of you do, too.

"Muney, muney, muney, muuuney....muuuuuuuuuney!"

2008-06-23T01:19:00.008-06:00

The Westboro Baptist Church recently received the following letter from a 15-year-old basement dweller who nonetheless identifies himself as a wealthy “Jew Fag.” They were good enough to publish this amusing missive for our entertainment, and so I must take advantage of their generosity:

Thank you for being poor. I’m a Jew Fag worth almost $180 million.

Hi Blake! Allow me to introduce myself: I’m an astronaut, a rock star, a ninja, and a highly paid test pilot on a secret government project that involves the future colonization of Mars. (Ooh, isn’t make-believe fun?)

Rich jew fags like me buy and sell people like you all day long.

Ah yes; you buy and sell people with such frightening regularity that you have no time for remedial writing classes. At any rate, your brag that you can “buy and sell people” is hardly the sort of thing that makes you fit to judge the morality of others.

It’s so fun to fly around in my Hawker 9000 (a $20 million dollar aircraft) laughing at the poor like you.

You fly around in a Hawker 9000, eh? Is that before or after you hover above the city in your personal jet pack, admiring the sights from on high??

Now am I right? Is there a single person in your "church" that makes say more than $25,000/year? I will ALWAYS be rich you will always be poor. I love that you people stand on the street while me, a Jew "Fag" has a $12 million house (long with four other vacation homes and a sail boat) and my own plane and more money than G-d would even have as I laugh at you. Jokes on you!

Who do you think you’re kidding, kid? Your current portfolio probably consists of the money you earned mowing lawns coupled with the change in your piggy bank. That aside, however, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, thinking that an over-abundance of money is somehow a good substitute for the warmth of family along with decent housing and adequate food.

WBC members have family and stability. Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial; they still have all these good things – things a lot of people, including wealthy folks, seem to lack.

You’d do better to seek out a life like theirs, filled with togetherness and warmth and purpose, than to go whoring after money.

"On My Honor"

2008-06-17T04:30:00.008-06:00

The following comment recently appeared on my “Defending Westboro Baptist Church” video:

dont you have any pride or honor? those are maybe the 2 greatest tools god gave us, I could never be so disrespectful

Most of the time, I'm storm-tossed; a ship without port or anchor, rolled from side to side in an angry sea. That isn’t to say I change my mind a lot, but simply that I’m always doubting. My internal monologue is a constant argument – a fight between the opposing principals of what is easy and what is right; between the impulse for evil and the impulse for good; between instinct and reason.

Instinct tells me to make port wherever I can find even the least shelter. This is an impulse I have followed before, and it cost me dearly. Despite my knowing how dangerous it is, however, that siren song from the nearest bit of land is almost unbearable. I can see the reefs and jagged rocks, and yet…

My conviction is no different now than it was when I began defending the Westboro Baptist Church: those people have the right to be wrong. Their unflagging belief in what they do was enough to make me doubt my own beliefs, however; and so I wondered if they – the church members, that is – weren’t correct after all. I certainly agree with a lot of their cultural criticism. I also agree that it would be wrong for a Biblical literalist to do any less than protest everywhere in trying to warn people about the dangers of eternal hellfire.

It is for this reason that I am grateful to members of the Westboro Baptist Church, even if I ultimately don’t agree with them. They would, of course, counter this with the claim that I’m disagreeing with God, to which I would respond, “By your lights, he made me to disagree with him.”

That said, I've concluded they're quite wrong. (Yes, I know: How dare I...blah blah etc.)

I’m very disturbed by the grandiose sense of self-importance certain church members exhibit, especially when they’re answering reader mail. Their ingratitude for the civil protection they receive - that also grates on my nerves. Of course they give all the glory to God, but they leave no room for good-faith relationships with other people.

If indeed they are the Elect, that’s all that separates them from the rest of us. They may have been bought with the blood of the lamb, but they’re still dirty, rotten sinners like everyone else. This nonsense about their being demonstrably better than the "earth-dwellers," to such an extent that they can dish out heavy helpings of verbal abuse without recognizing that the words themselves are malicious even if the intent is not – that’s the sort of reflexive blindness that makes it so dangerous to make port among them, no matter how bad the storm.

I would sooner wrestle with God; I would sooner face the whirlwind; I would sooner be pulled under the waves of a roiling sea than take it on faith that (for example) the prejudicial treatment of homosexuals is right, or that God is such a vindictive monster he would make people for no better a reason than to destroy them because he likes the smell of burning flesh.

I do not believe in that kind of God, but even if I did, I would challenge it. That is the soul he plucked from the burning. That is what his painful refinement has made of me. I did evil. God punished me. And this is the result of that punishment: I will examine even the most heart-felt claims in the light of reason, and be guided by logic and conscience and ethics.

People with the diminished capacity to tell right from wrong – that is, folks who are, according to the WBC and certain Bible passages, drunk on a strong delusion from God, making them incapable of repentance apparently just so God can experience the orgasmic pleasure of torturing them forever – are not responsible for their actions; and no truly moral being would punish them like that.

It’s illogical to believe in a God who codified certain moral principles (such as the prohibition against murder) even while deliberately causing his creations to violate those principles just so he can have a show to go with his popcorn.

The WBC would respond by telling me that I, as a mere creature, have no business daring to question the creator. To that I say, they’re moral cowards (on this one issue) for failing to question it.

I defend them, however, and I’ll keep defending them even though I don’t agree with their claims about the nature of God. (I know God’s nature because I’ve already been punished by that being: Perfect kindness and perfect justice.)

And if you had an honorable bone in your body, you would defend the WBC as well.

On the Inane Rantings of "d33pdivine"

2008-06-05T16:34:00.013-06:00

UPDATE: Dumb DD has put up a video denouncing me, and calling me a "follower of the Westboro Baptist Church." It's filled with a bunch of over-the-top hyperbole, just like her original entry - and in this installment, the kid actually starts sniveling. Disgusting.

----

She's since taken the video down, but YouTube surfer d33pdivine - that's DeepDivine, for those of you with a sense of irony - was recently caught with her pants down (and wearing nothing but an undershirt) in her most recent video-log.

DD claimed that the members of Westboro Baptist Church are worse than the Nazis and the KKK combined, because, to paraphrase, only the WBC manages to 'kill people's spirits.'

I replied to her video with a brief run-down of exactly what the Nazis and the KKK did, then bade her put some clothes on. Her response was as follows:

TEXT: "well i dont care about them... thanks.. the jews wernt here... and if you lived as close to camdennj as i do you wouldnt care about kkk either... so... i care about the soidlers... cry about it"

So there you have it, folks: DD doesn't care about all those murder victims whose tragedies she invoked; she only cares about US soldiers - ergo, the WBC is worse than the Nazis and the KKK because the civilian victims of those organizations never attracted her sympathy in the same way as the armed and trained soldiers in a volunteer army.

Of course, the truth is DD doesn't even care about the soldiers, despite what she says: her sole concern is with maintaining national pride. In other words, she's an idolatrous flag-worshiper.

On Book-Burning

2008-05-23T09:00:00.003-06:00

Anon:

You could have reached me through my contact page, and I would have published your comment in the ‘mail section.’ No worries, however: this is as good a place to discuss the matter as any.

You asked:

No other place to comment - what is wrong with burning the Koran? No "knowledge" is being destroyed, it is a wholly symbolic act, exactly the same as burning a flag.

The Sears catalog is a book - is it "abominable" to burn the Sears catalog? Or the phone book? Or a magazine? What is so sacred about a "book"?

If I printed out comments from youtube and bound it into a book, would it be "abominable" to burn it?

In my response, I’ve highlighted certain points for emphasis:

The act of burning a book is a protected form of free expression, and WBC members should be allowed to do this thing unmolested. Nonetheless, unlike a flag, which serves no other purpose than as a symbol, a book is more than that: it’s a repository of knowledge – whether it be a Qur’an, a compilation of YouTube quotes, or a magazine.

Indeed, if someone were burning the Sears Catalogue or a phonebook out of anger or in a bid to destroy knowledge, it’s much the same.

It doesn’t matter if an individual values the knowledge contained in the book or not. At the heart of it, book-burning is still the ultimate symbol of censorship - a gutter insult to those who value speech, especially coming as it does from an organization which has done so much in the past to protect the freedom of expression.

This is no different, in my mind, from someone deliberately destroying the WBC’s signs. That information is still out there, but the act itself is abominable.

And what’s more, the destruction of books has historically been a prelude to violence. In this case, the violence may be visited upon WBC members at the embassy or even upon soldiers in Iraq.

I don’t view the Qur’an as a special kind of book which should be uniquely exempt from burning. Au contraire; I have a copy of it located in the same place as a pile of newspapers and (believe it or not) a sales catalogue – none of which I would burn as a symbolic gesture.

Lest you think I make an idol of speech, I’ll disabuse you of the notion: I simply see it for what it is – the groundwork for freedom of religion; and the freedom to say things like “God Hates Fags.”

Without freedom of speech, there would be no Westboro Baptist Church. Those old-time preachers they enjoy so much would have been persecuted to the death, and their works destroyed – probably by fire.

And Fred Phelps, likewise.

48 Hours to Topeka

2008-04-09T19:32:00.003-06:00

There's another documentary about the WBC coming out, apparently sometime soon. I'm really interested in seeing it.

Watch the trailer here.

This is so good it MUST be fattening!

2008-03-04T23:47:00.005-07:00

YouTuber “nickdwhite” – his website is nickwhitepower.com, in case any of you ladies are looking for a good catch – had recently posted footage of a counter-protest against WBC members at the memorial service for Brianna Dennison.

I had a brief exchange with him in his comments section. To his credit, he didn’t whine like a little pussy and remove my words – even when I successfully pointed out what a hypocrite he was being. Indeed, he seemed to have at least a little respect for the freedom of expression, though he placed too sharp a limit on it.

Anyway, I had to do a double take when I surfed to the WBC blog this afternoon. The newest letter was from a guy who identified himself as “mikewhitepower”. At first, I thought that semi-literate screed was from Mr. Nick, since I’d misread the name; and this surprised me because Mr. Nick had shown himself to be a better speller.

Turns out the garbage letter was from a guy we'll call "Mr. Mike."

So Mr. Nick is off the hook for the crap I’m about to post, though I can’t get over the irony of not one but two different guys identifying themselves with the label “whitepower” even while bitching at the WBC for being a ‘hate cult.’

Now, on to Mr. Mike:

“shirley phelps roper,

im a marine corpral stationed in okinawa, japan. the marine corps trains us to kill when we are in the midst of battle because after all that is our job. ill die fighting for my country and my family and fellow marines in any given second. im sure somehow though risking my life for my own familys saftey is somehow wrong in your eyes. so please for my sins im asking you and your protestors to come to okinawa japan and protest us, im begging you actually because i would love you to see what an island full of marines would do. why dont you send the message to us who are alive com eprotest us and try to get the message out if your so determined to do it spread it all over the globe. i invite you to come to okinawa and attempt a protest on us. if not no worrys because i promise you one day we will meet and ill give you a taste of what my emotions are towards you.
semper fi

mikewhitepower”

Oooh, scary stuff! His poor grammar alone would be enough to kill me. I should think someone with even a sixth grade education, and especially someone serving in the corps, would at least know how to spell “corporal.”

This guy’s personal mantra lines up with that of the US education system which produced him: “Why do I need grammar when I have a gun?”

Answering a question = personal insult

2008-03-01T07:26:00.005-07:00

YouTuber "MvonRichter" posted the linked video response concerning a letter he received from he WBC. The short of it is this: someone - probably Margie Phelps, and not "Maggie" as he misidentifies - returned his snail-mail with her own comments handwritten in the margins. This upset him in part because he expected that she would type up a reply to his questions, and in part because he couldn't read her handwriting.

I saw his post during my regular YouTube search for new WBC videos, and answered his questions. The following exchange - and this says more about his character than mine, I think - took place in the comments section of his video:

"You FAIL" - My response to a comment that appeared on YouTube

2008-02-22T19:52:00.010-07:00

As all three of you know, I’ve posted several videos about the WBC on YouTube. Some of the comments I receive are good, some are bad, and some don’t make any sense at all.

A few are so frustrating and wrong-headed that they stand out from the rest. One kid, for example, argued with me black-is-white that rights are really just privileges graciously granted by our benevolent government. (He’ll make great cannon fodder at some point during the next oil-related war, I’m sure – and his family, which raised him to be such a smug little automaton, will hold a death festival to honor what remains of his bomb-blasted carcass.)

Another YouTube user, going by the handle ‘Swimrfreak29’, posted the following to my “Understanding Westboro” video yesterday:

“There is no light to be shinned on this cult...this song makes my ears bleed...and they aren't warning anyone!!! Hey take this quote from Jesus, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Your cult isn't perfect....and you can't warn people about their judgement, that is God's job as it says in Matthew 7:15 'Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep?s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.' You are all FALSE PROPHETS!!!”

There are so many problems with the above statement that I couldn’t formulate a thorough reply in the limited comment space.

“There is no light to be shinned (sic) on this cult…”

The WBC isn’t a cult.

“...and they aren't warning anyone!!!”

Stop your proud sinning or be destroyed by an angry God. That sounds like a warning to me – and one entirely in keeping with Old Testament tradition.

“Hey take this quote from Jesus, ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’”

John 8 is not an exhortation against human judgment; it’s a cry against judgment undertaken outside the confines of the law.

First, the verses in question:

John 8

1) Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2) And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3) And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4) They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5) Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6) This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7) So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8) And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9) And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Here’s some proper commentary on those verses as offered by John Gill.

{A]nd Jesus said unto her, neither do I condemn thee; Christ came not into the world to act the part of a civil magistrate, and therefore refused to arbitrate a case, or be concerned in dividing an inheritance between two brethren, Lu 12:13. Nor did he come into the world to condemn it, but that the world, through him, might be saved, Joh 3:17; nor would he pass any other sentence on this woman, than what he had done; nor would he inflict any punishment on her himself; but suitably and agreeably to his office; as a prophet, he declares against her sin, calls her to repentance, and bids her go and sin no more; lest as he said to the man he cured at Bethesda's pool, a worse thing should come unto her. Wherefore the Jew {s} has no reason to object to this conduct of Christ, as if he acted contrary to the law, in De 13:5. "Thou shalt put the evil away from the midst of thee"; and also to the sanctions of all civil laws among men, which order the removal of evil, by putting delinquents to death; and he observes, that those that believe in him, do not follow him in this, but put adulterers and adulteresses to death; and that indeed, should his example and instructions take place, all courts of judicature must cease, and order be subverted among men: but it should be observed, that our Lord manifested a regard, even to the law of Moses, when he bid this woman's accusers that were without sin, to cast the first stone at her; though as for the law in De 13:5, that respects a false prophet, and not an adulterer or an adulteress; nor do the civil laws of all nations require death in the case of adultery; and did they, Christ here, neither by his words nor actions, contradicts and sets aside any such laws of God or man; he left this fact to be inquired into, examined, and judged, and sentence passed by proper persons, whose business it was: as for himself, his office was not that of a civil magistrate, but of a Saviour and Redeemer; and suitably to that he acted in this case; he did not connive at the sin, he reproved for it; nor did he deny that she ought to suffer according to the law of Moses, but rather suggests she ought; but as this was not his province, he did not take upon him to pronounce any sentence of condemnation on her; but called her to repentance, and, as the merciful and compassionate Saviour, gave her reason to hope pardon and eternal life.

“Your cult isn't perfect....”

They never once claimed to be perfect.

“...and you can't warn people about their judgement, that is God's job as it says in Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep?s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."”

First, the related verses:

Matthew 7:15-20

15) Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19) Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

We aren’t left to guess what “good fruit” is. The Bible includes a list:

Galatians 5:22-23

22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Love – At their own expense, members of the Westboro Baptist Church travel around the United States with words of warning. They see this as an act if compassion – an example of how to demonstrate love for one’s neighbor.

Joy – They don’t complain about what they do. In fact, they seem to relish it – and they live in peace with one another, besides.

Peace – They hope for this, which is more than can be said for many people.

Longsuffering – 17 years of pickets and counting.

Gentleness – I’ve actually spoken with Shirley Phelps Roper, and she’s a nice person. By all accounts, most WBC members are just genuinely caring people. Try coming at them in all sincerity, instead of frothing at the mouth about how they’re the inbred members of a cult, and you might just learn a thing or two.

Goodness – They contribute to their community through charitable activities, and they try to better the world through their warnings.

Faith – Clearly, they have faith that God exists, and that they’re serving his interests.

Meekness – Even when they’re surrounded by an angry mob, they still hold their ground and say their piece. All of them have demonstrated almost super-human self control in the face of danger and anger. Surely, they are among the meek.

Temperance – They’re hard workers, and almost all of them have post-secondary training. Members of the church, such as Margie Phelps, for example, excel in their secular occupations through good work and sobriety.

"You are all FALSE PROPHETS!"

You provided the verses by which to test members of the WBC, and I showed you their fruits are good. You might want to take those words of yours back, now.

An Interesting Comment From Prosey

2008-02-21T08:42:00.004-07:00

In response to my "WBC Values speech enough to fight for it" post, Prosey made an interesting comment. That comment has been reproduced here along with my reply:

I'm new to your blog, so forgive me if I'm playing catch up. I found your site through YouTube.

Thank you for taking the time to review my site and visit this blog.

I *am* someone who "hates" the WBC (as much as I can "hate" anything, I guess). Likewise, I am *also* someone who supports the right to freedom of speech.

Seems conflicted. But not really. The problem with the Phelpsies isn't that they're protecting their right to free speech - I mean, come to that, how does the saying go? I may disagree with *what* you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it...I can't remember exactly, but it goes along that vein.

Here’s the quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Apparently, this was penned by one Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1906 – her paraphrase of Voltaire.

You might find it interesting what Voltaire himself wrote back in 1763: “Not only is it extremely cruel to persecute in this brief life those who do not think the way we do, but I do not know if it might be too presumptuous to declare their eternal damnation.”

The problem here *isn't* defending the WBC's *right* to freedom of speech.

The problem is that they infringe upon the rights of others. Most of their picketing protests are...well...distasteful, but peaceful, as evidenced in many videos where they're seen. However, and this is a *big* however...within 500 feet, by people who *know and take a LOT of pride* in the very fact that they are hated, just as much as the vitriol they're guilty of spreading, it is a deliberate and antagonistic ploy on their parts to incite the anger and violence in others.

I would have to disagree with you here. Their efforts aren’t designed to generate hatred; they’re designed to make people think – about mortality, about Biblical justice, and about the direction of our culture.

They believe they’re doing a necessary duty, and are pleased to see that people are paying attention.

Does it justify those violent reactions? No, of course not...but there's guilt and a LOT of it on both sides of that table.

Further, they are guilty of infringing upon the right to freedom of thought in their children. And *that* is where I believe that they are without defense with regard to the First Amendment right they fight for. All of their hate messages stem from ONE person. Fred Phelps, Sr. He would be a pitiable man even if I didn't know his biography...but what he is guilty of is not so much *what* he hates (which is bad enough), but how he's passed it on through his offspring. If you watch the videos of Shirley trying to get the children holding the pickets to speak her same message, it's clearly ingrained through indoctrination - not through any other means.

“Aren’t WBC members brainwashing their children?” – June 30, 2007

Now, is that illegal? Uhm...yes and no. Many MANY in this country - from churches to schools - are guilty of that...in that you and I are in complete agreement. However, does it make it right for the Phelps clan to continue that path further, when down the road, those same children will quite likely take their message to the next level? There is no freedom of speech defense to that, whatsoever.

It’s unlikely, given the members’ attitudes towards violence and their belief in Biblical literalism, that any of the kids would “take it to the next level” merely as a result of how they’ve been raised. I just can't see it.

I believe firmly in the golden rule, and always try to treat others as I would want to be treated. Thing is...unless you (and by you, I mean *anyone*) *know* the WBC, you may not realize that they also live by the golden rule. They *do* treat others as they want to be treated, which is why they're proud of the hatred that is directed at them. Makes them feel justified somehow.

You’re absolutely right: they’re doing to others as they would have others do to them. They see this as a kindness.

Therefore, most of what they have coming *to* them is likewise justified.

That doesn’t follow: Those who hurl insults or worse at members of the WBC don’t even pretend to do so out of kindness.

Those people who do evil to members of the WBC would not, if they themselves were acting on a deeply-held belief, want to be subjected to ill treatment.

Dropping that particular context is worrisome at best, even while I thoroughly understand your reasoning...and for the most part, agree with you.

*peace*

Thank you! Comments like yours are what make this blog worth maintaining.

WBC values speech enough to fight for it. How about you?

2008-02-15T21:44:00.002-07:00

From Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, which was filed on December 6, 2007:

“Phelps-Roper requested a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of section 578.501 until the statute could be reviewed; the district court denied her motion, holding she did not demonstrate she was likely to succeed on the merits, did not demonstrate irreparable harm, and the public interest weighed in favor of upholding the challenged statutory provisions. This appeal followed. We reverse."

The reversal read in part:

“The injunction will not cause substantial harm to others, and the public is served by the preservation of constitutional rights. The district court abused its discretion when it concluded the balance of harms weighed toward denying the motion for a preliminary injunction based on its erroneous determination as to Phelps-Roper being unlikely to succeed on the merits.”

ANATOMY OF A HATE CRIME

2008-02-11T12:55:00.001-07:00

January 26 – Reno, Nevada

Three members of the Westboro Baptist Church appeared in Reno, Nevada to protest at a military funeral. Over 100 counter-protesters turned out to express their displeasure at the WBC’s actions, including members of the ubiquitous Patriot Guard Riders.

Both the WBC and the PGR videotaped this event and posted clips online.

Video shot by a counter-protester shows PGR demonstrators and other people converging on members of the WBC in a hostile and uncontrolled manner. If violence had broken out in that situation, the police would have been powerless to stop it for their lack of preparation in the form of a crowd control barrier.

News coverage of the event bragged that no assaults had taken place, and yet there is video evidence of clashes between counter-protesters and members of the WBC.

The PGR videos appear to depict a continuous sequence of events broken into three parts. In the first clip, members of the WBC are not visible at all.

The action takes place in the second clip, which is located here.

A counter-protester physically engaged one member of the WBC. – 0:55
Another WBC member, a gentleman in red, stood on a snow bank with a picket sign in each hand – 1:07
A group of counter-protesters converged on him. – 1:17
One counter-protester stepped in front of the WBC member and stood facing away from him. – 1:20
A second counter-protester pushed the first counter-protester into the WBC member, causing the latter to stumble off the snow bank. – 1:23
The WBC member regained his footing and joined his companions on even ground. 1:31

He’s, Like, So Cool For Having Committed Assault

2008-02-10T21:22:00.000-07:00

I recently came across a video on youtube – the poster's handle is Mersh33, in case you’re curious – wherein a grown man spits on a member of the WBC.

I permitted myself the leisure of stopping by his comments section to tell him how much he sucked for acting like a 12-year-old.

Turns out his childish wankery in that video is but a reflection of his childish wankery everywhere else. And the echo chamber created by his friends did nothing to help that man-child grow up.

Poor Mersh – turns out he is jealous of the fact I can string a sentence together. I’m sure that he, too, could learn this awesome skill if he but paid more attention to books. Alas, for the sort of man who goes around spitting on people, it’s probably too late.

I’m sure that in his heart of hearts, Mersh realizes spitting on someone is not only illegal but immature as well. Unfortunately, thinking like an adult is just too hard for this fellow. He has my pity – as do his special ed teachers and his parents, all of whom are no doubt proud that he’s developed enough coordination to post on the internet.

Hang your head in shame, Amy Contrada!

2007-11-10T04:19:00.001-07:00

One of my greatest joys in life comes from verbally bitch-slapping people who engage in acts of unmitigated cruelty or shocking stupidity. For reasons that I explain in-depth at therighttobewrong.net, I don’t believe the members of Westboro Baptist Church fall into either category.

But there are plenty of dyed-in-the-wool homophobes – flag worshippers practically to a man – who do fit. I send these people mail sometimes, and couldn’t resist inking my poisoned pen for the assclowns at MassResistance.org. You can read human rights activist Pam Spaulding’s take on their latest high-jinks by clicking here.

After that, go read the MassResistance…uh…exposé for yourself.

17-year-old Claudia Contrada is apparently mature enough to use the internet without supervision and to give interviews to gay publications, but far too young and too vulnerable to know whether she is attracted to boys or girls.

According to her mother, Amy, the girl must have been coerced or otherwise hoodwinked by those evil homos into believing she was one of them. This disturbing development led her adoptive parent – the revelation Claudia is adopted is but one of a few private things that Amy revealed in her tell-all screed – to reveal to the world how Claudia has “special needs.” She makes some ominous allusions to psychological and emotional troubles (and therapists!), before going on to state that Claudia has no clue what she really wants. In fact, the poor, befuddled girl doesn’t even know what a lesbian is!

Amy then posts some of Claudia’s fan mail, which had resulted from the publication of those afore-mentioned interviews. Most of this was pretty innocuous – stuff along the lines of, “keep up the good fight” and other such platitudes. (One writer called Amy a bitch, forsooth.)

Of course, Amy never posted any of Claudia’s outgoing correspondence, instead choosing merely to describe the content of it as a “confused” effort at attention-seeking.

Amy said that at first she ignored Claudia’s claims of homosexuality – an odd reaction, considering how totally disturbed this girl is supposed to be. Hell, she even let Claudia participate in a staging of the Laramie Project.

It was only when Claudia’s name began cropping up on “gay sites” that Amy became alarmed. Of course, it would be crass of me to insinuate there’s anything going on here besides parental concern – so I’ve come right out and accused Amy of protecting her own reputation at the expense of her !!!ADOPTED, MENTALLY DISTURBED!!! daughter’s well-being. Click here to see both my letter and the laughable response from MassResistance.org.

Now, I actually don’t know if Claudia Contrada was made an unwitting pawn in an attempt to embarrass her mother. It’s possible, I suppose. I do know, however, that Amy made things a whole lot worse for both of them.

On Snyder v. WBC

2007-11-08T14:08:00.001-07:00

Click here.

Some Thought-Provoking Comments, Part 2

2007-11-06T10:50:00.001-07:00

Mrs. #9 said...

There's a difference between free speech and hate speech. WBC is the latter. They've also made anti-semitic and racial comments. Therefore, I do not know how you can defend them and say it is free speech when they're preaching hate and excluding a society.

Free speech and hate speech are not mutually exclusive categories. The former includes the latter a lot of the time. Whether it is racism or anti-Semitism or the rabid hatred of homosexuals, it’s still protected speech – as it should be.

These are not harmless words. They can be very influential to someone and take that "hate" to the next level which is violence. Additionally, picketing at funerals is disrespectful. They've even gone far as protesting against the Amish victims shooting. They are not spreading free speech or the word of God, but words of Hate. How can one value or call this free speech when it is filled with malice and contempt for a human being?

You’re essentially saying the only speech that should be permitted must also be innocuous in nature.

Not all free speech is valuable. In fact, some of it is inane and some of it is insulting and some of it is laced with false claims and bald prejudices. Maybe a fraction of all the chatter going on is of any positive value.

But what constitutes valuable speech is for each individual to decide on his or her own. It isn’t for the government to decide. It isn’t for a decency board to decide. It is for you and me to decide for ourselves. If you don’t like what is on television, turn the channel. If you don’t like what’s on the radio, turn the dial. If you don’t like what picketers on a public street have to say about homosexuals, turn the other cheek.

Or better yet, counter hate speech with more speech – with words designed to debunk or defuse it. Dismantle bad arguments. Confront cruelty and expose the assumptions that under-gird it.

The Phelps are a bunch of hypocrites. The daughter Shirley Phelps has an illegitimate son and Fred Phelps Jr. was never married to his "first" wife who died of a drug overdose. Which I don't doubt contributed by the stress of the Phelps radical belief and their maltreatment of her being raised Catholic.

I don’t think they’re hypocrites; they don’t continue in the activities they decry. And they’ve never claimed to be sinless.

There's a time to protest your belief and protesting at funerals when their loved ones in mourning does not constitute as free speech. Hate breeds hate. That is what WBC is about.

I think you might find this interesting.

Some Thought-Provoking Comments, Part 1

2007-11-06T10:46:00.001-07:00

diebuchen said...

From the beginning of our Republic, there has always been some limitations on free speech, and there should be.

The Phelps have many outlets for their hate, and they use them well. They are constantly picketing at governmental functions, plays, and other civic events. They are frequently interviewed by radio, television and print reporters. They have had several movies made about them. The have frequent releases of their videos, and they regularly post on Youtube.com and other such on-line outlets and blogs.

WBC does not NEED to picket funerals to get their message out. They are doing fine without it.

People generally have just one time and one place to honor their dead, and should be left in peace to do so. That is decent and fair.

The Phelps want to insinuate themselves into funerals by their vicious and sometimes vulgar antics for publicity. For the parents, wives and children of the dead, funerals of their loved ones will be the worst day of their lives. It should be a time of private grief and remembrance for mourners, yet the Phelps want to forever mar that event with their petty, self-serving, inane and insane rants.

For those who believe the Phelps should be able to demonstrate at funerals, I have a few questions.

Suppose you were laying your only child to rest. How close is too close for the Phelps insanity?

Should they be allowed to lie down in front of the pall bearers? Should they be allowed to stand outside the church or funeral home and disrupt the services with a bull horn? Should they be allowed to enter the facility and call the mourners fags and whores?

If you answered "no" to any of the above questions you too believe free speech should have some restrictions, and rightly so.

The Phelps would have a point if the ONLY place they could demonstrate were funerals. They are not so restricted, and mourners also have rights for peace and privacy.

Laws are meant to ensure decency and fairness where there is none, and so it should be with demonstrations at funerals.

I’ve recently addressed some of these concerns in another letter, which is posted here.

The Wrong Track #2

2007-09-14T00:14:00.000-06:00

Chuck Armstrong, whom I first introduced over here, has responded to my comment. I've posted another comment at his blog, and am reproducing that response here.

His answer is in green, interspersed with my comments in black:

I did not compare Shirley to a murderer, rather to those who believe the American lifestyle is a sin. Radical Islamists have called for a fatwa against all Americans and allies; they want us dead. Shirley Phelps may not actually kill Americans, but guess what? She wants us dead. She told me that she hopes the number of dead soldiers in Iraq goes up to 3 million and more. Gee, that sounds as though she hates America and wants to see Americans dead because of the lifestyle we live...Much like why Radical Islamists want to see us dead.

In your own words: "Their actions are comparable to radical Islamists who wage war on this country and its allies; after all, she prays God will continue sending soldiers back home in body bags."

Not their words, mind you, nor their sentiments – their actions are comparable, in your view, to those of radical Muslims.

All of the verses you provided are from the Old Testament, except for John 3:16. Any Christian knows that the New Testament introduces the idea of love with God's only son, Jesus Christ. It is true that God is a vengeful God, but it is far from true that God hates individuals and sends them to die...and is glad for their deaths.

I don’t think you’ve read your Bible very carefully. You seem to be under the impression the New Testament is filled with fluff and light. If you’re talking about the eternal fate of a soul, however, the New Testament is actually a lot more harsh and unforgiving than the Old.

The New Testament introduces the concept of eternal torment for those who are not among the Elect. Check out the whole or Romans 9 and practically every word in the Book of Revelation for more on that subject.

WBC members don’t have to twist scripture for their understanding of God.

Ah, and I do not know how Shirley would feel if you lumped her in with right-wing terror groups. In fact, she would probably react to that accusation the same way she reacted to the accusation of me comparing her to a Radical Islamist.

I didn’t lump her in with right-wing terror groups. I provided that link to show you, despite your description of Shirley Phelps Roper as one of the vilest women alive, how there are plenty of people who deserve that label more than her.

You’re scared of the WBC? Go to Neiwert’s site and read his articles. That’ll cure you of your timidity right quick.

I find it interesting that people like me terrify you, when in fact you are the one defending the Westboro Baptist Church, which is perhaps one of the most skewed systems of beliefs I've encountered - notice I said one of the most...I realize there are others. Just like I called Shirley one of the most evil and vile women in today's world. Define evil and vile, and that defines Shirley...Me calling her that does not mean that I do not understand her philosophy.

Shirley Phelps Roper and other members of her church fly around the United States at an estimated cost of about 200k a year (by their own count) in order to warn people; to demonstrate the relationship between a ‘national culture of sin’ and the outpouring of God’s wrath.

You may not agree with the content of her message, but I don’t see how you can consider her intentions evil.

I think you brought Shirley Phelps Roper on your show to “expose her” rather than to get to the root of her views and why she holds them. You came away from that exchange in the same way as you approached it: terrified and ill-informed.

The Wrong Track

2007-09-13T09:13:00.000-06:00

Over at his blog, The Right Track, pundit Chuck Armstrong posted a column concerning the radio interview he conducted with Shirley Phelps Roper of Westboro Baptist Church. He starts with this:

Since I had the dishonor of interviewing Shirley Phelps-Roper on Monday for the radio show, I figured I would continue to expose her and her church in today's opinion column.

His...um...exposé contained, among other things, the following gems:

"Thank God for 9/11. Thank God for (Improvised Explosive Devices). God hates Fags." These words came from the mouth of one of the most evil and vile women in today's world.

...and...

This must be the same duty that entails individuals holding signs with hate speech, but excludes praying for the United States. Contradiction riddles the beliefs of Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. The God of Peace is full of hatred.

It is a sin to pray for America, yet it is acceptable to preach God hates America. It is mind-numbing.

...and...

Sept. 11 always will be a day of solemnity, reverence and peaceful reflection. What the Phelps' do is sickening and an unbelievable disrespect to this nation. Their actions are comparable to radical Islamists who wage war on this country and its allies; after all, she prays God will continue sending soldiers back home in body bags.

The real mystery here is where to begin in deconstructing this maudlin schlock. To start, I left the following response over at Armstrong's place:

You’ve thought nothing about tossing out a hyperbolic description of Shirley Phelps Roper as “one of the most evil and vile women in today's world.” This leads me to suspect that you never had an interest in understanding her philosophy. You invited her on your show not to enlighten listeners about an alien way of thinking, but simply to make fun of her beliefs.

I would like to address a few of the points you make in your column:

1) The members of Westboro Baptist Church are not equivalent to a radical Muslim group – particularly not if you’re talking about the terrorist arm of such an organization. WBC members don’t engage in physical violence during their protests. They don’t plan and carry out attacks that maim or kill people. They speak words. They express ideas. How can you see that as comparable to acts of murder?

2) They believe praying for the United States is a sin because of the following Bible passages:

Jer. 15:1

Then said the LORD unto me, Though Moses Ex. 32.11-14 - Num. 14.13-19 and Samuel 1 Sam. 7.5-9 stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people: cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth.

Jer. 7:16

Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee.

In other words, yes, it is acceptable to mount pickets that feature signs of warning even while maintaining that it is a sin to make prayers and supplications on behalf of America. I don’t see a contradiction between the two positions.

3) Phelps Roper is correct on at least one matter: If you are content to quote words from the Bible to justify a position – for example, John 3:16 as the basis for the claim God loves everyone (etc.) - then you must also accept the God of vengeance.

What terrifies me is that a lot of people, including you, cannot differentiate between acts of speech and acts of physical violence.

You’re terrified of the Phelpses, who do nothing but speak words, even while other groups – far more secretive and far more dangerous – spread their violent views without public scrutiny.

Check out this blog – http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/ - by journalist Dave Neiwert. He keeps fairly close tabs on right-wing terror groups and their activities within the United States.

I didn't even come close to dealing with his ridiculous assertion that September 11th will always be a day of reverence.

Six years ago, approximately 3000 people were incinerated by 19 hijackers who thought nothing of murdering for the sake of their cause. Those terrorists didn't carry signs nor content themselves with speaking out against what they considered to be a culture gone awry; they killed people - lots and lots of people.

Rescue workers ended up dying in a futile attempt to fish bodies from the rubble.

And subsequent to that, a whole nation went mad with fear to the point where the exercise of critical speech became synonymous with treason; where imprecatory prayer became comparable to physical attack.

I find that last bit especially odd, since Armstrong doesn't believe in a hateful God: He thinks the WBCs prayers will not be answered by the Man of War in which they believe, and yet he also thinks that their prayers are just as dangerous as bombs and terror plots.

To borrow his words, it is mind-numbing.

September 11th should be a day of shameful reflection, and not reverence, to a nation that exchanged rights for a false sense of security; for a whole generation of people who allowed themselves to be transformed into death-worshiping hatemongers.

WBC has a new blog

2007-09-02T16:41:00.000-06:00

The WBC has a new blog up, and I recommend you check it out.

Just today, Shirley Phelps Roper posted her response to a letter from a ‘preacher’ named Vince. His first comment out the gate was that he couldn’t read either the FAQ or the archived letters on the GodHatesFags.com website because the internet filter he used would not permit it.

And he would never defy the mighty filter, even if he did have the password – which he doesn’t.

His next comment brought up a chuckle. I tried to suppress my urge to laugh and failed miserably.

What I couldn’t believe was the immodest clothing that the ladies wore that represented WBC. Ladies in tight pants and shirts. The following verses give a definitive answer as to what ladies wearing pants is, note the same condemnation…ABOMINATION.

I think if Vince were exposed to more of the world, rather than allowing his overseers to shelter him as if he were an ignorant child, he could have found other things to discuss about the picket than what the ladies were wearing.

That he was quick to notice their attributes says a lot more about him than it does them

Shirley Phelps Roper's response is here.

Defending WBC on YouTube

2007-08-17T03:02:00.000-06:00

There’s an interesting discussion going on over at YouTube concerning my first “Defending the Westboro Baptist Church” video. Needless to say, most people disagree with my take on the situation – i.e., that WBC members are exponentially more hostile than they would be if people refrained from directing so much animus towards them.

Alas, I had to moderate comments to keep a couple of rather obnoxious trolls under wraps. Other than that, however, the dialogue has been surprisingly civil.

On a related note, I am building a small multimedia library for the site, and have several permissions requests floating around in cyberspace. Of particular interest to me is an old CNN clip that featured a boy named Duffy Strode, who was expelled from school for preaching an offensive message on campus.

It would be educational to compare how he was treated by the press with the reception WBC members receive.

Whether you love my site or hate it, keep an eye out for new additions.

More new mail

2007-07-04T20:42:00.000-06:00

There's a new leter up: therighttobewrong.net/june_30_2007.pdf

New letters!

2007-06-01T00:17:00.001-06:00

Check out the Mail Section at therighttobewrong.net for the latest letters.