The Qur'an/Bible tells me so!

Thanks to Atheist Cartoons.

Joe Kovacs, God and the Bible

Joe Kovacs, an editor for the right wingnut World Net Daily, has written a new book called Shocked by the Bible.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I haven't read it. I have read what Kovacs and a few others have said about it. I have read that Bill O'Reilly thinks it's the cat's meow. If what I've heard is true, then Kovacs is a moron.

Kovacs is going to tell you all about the "true" facts of the Bible, because he has read the Bible and is a true "Bible believer."

"...I'm trying to educate people about what's there," Kovacs told a right wingnut talk radio host. "I'm trying to get people to go back to the Bible. I can't force people to believe it. That's up to them. But I can try to stun them with some amazing facts that they've never been told that might get them to crack open the pages of the Bible and say, 'I cannot believe that is in the Bible or that is not in the Bible. I've been misinformed all these years.'"

Kovacs thinks that "most people don't know what the Bible says [that's very true, but he isn't going to help overcome that ignorance!], and they're confused with a lot [sic] brainwashing by the media over centuries. This is not something that started 10 or 15 years ago. We're talking centuries and millennia of misconceptions floating around out there."

Heh. Heh. Yup. The reason people don't know what the Bible says is because they've been brainwashed by the "media" for centuries or millennia, even. Please. What is this moron talking about? What "media" existed centuries ago? Millennia ago?


I hate to give this character any more publicity, but he doth provide a good example of what happens when people misunderstand the Bible so completely; treat it as a collection of magical material; and think of the old tales, sagas and myths as historical realities.

For example: Kovacs told the right wingnut radio host that "There is a portion [in the Bible] where God actually reveals Himself in his full glory to him [Moses]. He stuck Moses between the cleft of a rock, because Moses asked to see God, to show him His way. ...

"As He [God] walked by, He put his hand over his eyes so Moses was unable to see God's face. But as He walked away, God lifted His hand, and Moses could see the back side of God as He's walking away, in His full glory. This is the Old Testament stuff that people never hear about. That God actually revealed Himself in his full glory to Moses."

Honestly. I am not making this up. God revealed his back side to Moses! IN ITS FULL GLORY!

And Moses said, "Holy crap!"

[The story is found in Exodus 33:17-23. In Exodus 34, God gives Moses the commandments again along with a bunch of other commandments which seem to have just as much importance as the first "10."]

Now, it gets even more interesting. Here's what this moron, Kovacs said:

"And guess what. He looked like a guy just walking right by you. God does say that He's got eyes and hands and arms and legs and feet and nostrils. So God does look like us. We are made in His image. Some people are not aware of that. They think God is some ethereal cloud floating around out there. We are made in the image of God. We weren't made in the image of puppies or butterflies or snakes or caterpillars. God actually made man after the God kind because we're meant to be with God in His family for all eternity."


Methinks "moron" is too nice a term. God is a physical being? Looks just like us? Then what the hell is Jesus talking about when he's quoted in John 4:24 as saying "God is a spirit and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth"?

I think trying to reason with Kovacs would be like arguing with a doorpost. What he's done is created his own God in Kovacs' own image. Which is pretty much what those ancient storytellers did when they wrote these tall tales about ancient nomads lost in the desert.

Kovacs is one of those guys who makes it really hard to believe in heaven. Would you want to roll around heaven all day with this fruitcake?

I'm not "shocked" by the Bible, I'm shocked there are people as stupid as Kovacs writing a book about it. He is, in spite of his profession to the contrary, a biblical illiterate!

The New Ten Commandments

The so-called Ten Commandments, which may in fact be 11, or 9 commandments depending on who's counting, are derived from a couple of places in the Bible but were not actually original with the god, Yahweh or his servant, Moses. They are a refinement of previous ancient Near Eastern legal codes, such as the one attributed to Hammurabi.

But, hell, nobody except for some christianist right wingnuts cares about the Ten Commandments these days, anyway. I mean, who takes the prohibition of sculptured images literally, and lots of people put their hand on a bible and swear falsely all the time, and except for Orthodox Jews, not many folks bother to keep the Sabbath holy.

It is interesting to note that the Hebrew verbiage relating to the Decalogue is better translated "ten words," or "ten statements," than the traditional "ten commandments." Notice how that puts the whole business in another context - less legal, more instructive.


It's time for something NEW, something more relevant, more instructive, less legal, less religious. It's time for a new set of "commandments," or "words," or "statements."

Fortunately, my friend, Ken, at Fergie's Dribble has come up with such a list!

1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.

3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

6. Always seek to be learning something new.

7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

10. Question everything.

Richard Dawkin's in his book, "The God Delusion" adds a couple or [sic] more which I also like:

11. Enjoy your sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business.

12. Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race, or (as far as possible) species.

13. Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.

14. Value the future on a timescale longer than your own.


Having said all that, it's time to watch one of Mel Brooks' funniest videos which tends to put things in perspective.

If Christians can divorce for abuse, why can't they respect gays?

[Image by Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times]

According to Barbara Roberts in her book, Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion, Christians may divorce and remarry if adultery, desertion or domestic abuse is involved.

Ms. Roberts is challenging the accepted wisdom of the fundamentalist christianist community. For example, Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, holds to the notion the Bible does not provide an exemption from the prohibition of divorce for domestic abuse.

I haven't read Ms. Roberts' book and do not intend to for the simple reason I have no confidence that most biblical admonitions have validity in the 21st century, especially those relating to marriage and divorce.

But, if she indeed argues that the Bible allows divorce in cases of domestic abuse, she is most certainly "rewriting" scripture; or at least the New Testament in which Jesus makes clear that divorce is only allowed for "adultery," and he isn't even happy about that.

[Actually, in first century Palestine, divorce was the prerogative of the husband. A Jewish woman could not divorce her husband under any circumstances, although it appears there may have been cases where the wife initiated the divorce followed by her husband then giving her the divorce papers.]

Here are the plain teachings of Jesus:

Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 - Jesus says clearly one may divorce only in cases of adultery.

Luke 16:18: Jesus says "A man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery" and vice versa (the writer of Luke was not up on Jewish law). But notice, no way out there!

Mark 10:2-12: Jesus says the same thing. No divorce and remarriage except for adultery.

We must conclude, for christianists who stress literalism and inerrancy, domestic abuse is not a legitimate reason to divorce, according to the Bible.


Except that Ms. Roberts, a survivor of domestic abuse, has done an intense study of all the Biblical passages that deal with divorce and decided that "the Bible sets victims of abuse free from bondage and guilt."

She claims the Bible makes a distinction between "treacherous divorce," and "disciplinary divorce." And disciplinary divorce, which has to do with abuse, adultery and/or desertion, is allowed in the Bible.

Like I've said before, you can make the Bible say pretty much anything you want it to.

I find this all quite amusing. To be so chained to a faith position and a magical book that one has to go through all sorts of theological and biblical hoops in order to determine that a victim of domestic abuse is "allowed" to divorce, is just sad. To look to this ancient collection of "wisdom," written by persons unknown with no knowledge of science or psychology or how the world actually works, in order to get "permission" to do what any sane person knows is the right thing to do, is a waste of time and energy.

I happen to agree with Ms. Roberts' conclusions, so far as abuse and divorce go, but she doesn't go far enough. Marriage should never be treated lightly, but if a marriage is irretrievably broken, we should make it as easy as possible for the partners to divorce. We don't need to get "authority" from the Bible to do our humane duty.


But, let's look at what Ms. Roberts has done with Biblical "evidence," and apply it to homosexuality.

The great majority of scientists today are convinced that some human beings are born with a same-sex attraction. Homosexuality is not something that one chooses, anymore than is heterosexuality. Why would anyone choose to be part of a hated and persecuted minority?

If that's the case, then christianists should blame God for she created everything and everyone that exists.

Furthermore, we can do exactly the same thing with the homosexual issue that Ms. Roberts has done with regard to divorce - recast the biblical passages that deal with homosexuality so that our understanding is more in line with contemporary science and with a loving God.

The marriage of fundamentalist christianity with ancient taboos has led to torrents of abuse raining down upon our homosexual brothers and sisters.

Christians should do for homosexuals what Ms. Roberts has done for domestic abuse victims caught in horrific marital situations - give homosexual victims of christianist abuse a way out of their "bondage and guilt"! (I know, most homosexuals are not caught up in "bondage and guilt" anymore, but christianists could at least acknowledge their worth as human beings.) All the christianists need to do is interpret the Bible in the light of the knowledge and understandings of our time, which is exactly what Ms. Roberts has done in her book.

Come to think of, Lisa Miller already did that in a recent Newsweek article. Didn't work.

Nebraska moron gets his comeuppance by PhillyChief

First click here. You will find a blog by an ignoramus named Sam away out in Nebraska who is pissed off at atheists and other nogoodniks who are intolerant of his god and his desire to pray to Jesus in the public schools...He's also got things to say about "Darwinism," even though there is no such thing, and how atheistic folks are constantly making fun of his Bible and his beliefs, and how, in the end he doesn't mind, 'cause Jesus prophesied the mockery he's experiencing would come to all "true" believers.

Well, you oughta read the article.

PhillyChief's response:

Sam,

Freedom of opinion is a protected right in America, but in order to form the best possible opinions, you need to have accurate information to base those opinions on. You don't seem to have accurate information for your opinions so I'd like to offer that information to you.

"You atheists are rabid in your beliefs"

There's no belief system to atheism. Atheism is a response to a claim of deity existence. There's not even any rules for how to reach your conclusion. You can reach it through logic, through tea leaves, through a sixth sense, or reach it the way you (I assume) are an atheist when it comes to Thor and Vishnu, you just refuse to believe.

"You can preach your religion of Darwinism in our schools, but our Christian beliefs are forbidden."

Where do I begin? Ok first, NO religion is permitted to be preached in public schools due to the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment (each American should read and know their Constitution). You can teach religion, but you can't preach it.

Second, science is not a religion. Science is a process that has been successful for understanding our world and affording humanity great achievements (we are, after all, communicating right now due to science). Science's process requires hypotheses be testable and refutable. For instance, you can claim grass is purple, but such a claim is easily refuted. Now you can also claim that grass is green due to fairies, but such a claim is not scientific because it can't be tested. This is why ID was denied in the Dover case, because it's an untestable claim and thus, not science.

I wouldn't expect Shakespeare to be taught in science class, and I wouldn't expect Newton's laws to be taught in a religion class. It's just not where they belong, so aside from the unconstitutional aspect, religion simply doesn't belong in a science class.

"If you want to proclaim that we come from monkeys..."

No, chimps and humans have a common ancestor. That's different. What you're saying is like you came from your cousin, when actually you both share a grandparent. Capiche?

"Why are you afraid to let Christians give their point of view in Schools, Government, etc.?"

The Supreme Court has ruled that doing that in school is coercive. The idea is that if presented by the school, then the pov carries the weight of the school's support and by extension, the government's, when this is unconstitutional (remember that 1st Amendment?). Far from restricting you, it's actually there to protect you. In our nation's history, Catholics invoked the 1st Amendment to have their children protected from Protestant preaching in school, and various Protestants have used it to protect their children from other Protestant teachings they disagree with. I know you like the idea of debate, which is fine if everyone is on equal footing, but if the authorities are the ones who champion one pov, then that's not equal footing, is it? This is the whole point of the Establishment Clause. Again, I encourage you to read it.

Most everything else you wrote is simply opinion. I don't agree with your opinions, but so be it, but the quoted bits above were simply based on either incorrect or insufficient knowledge. I will answer a question of yours...

"What are you atheists so afraid of? Why do you get so angry?"

I would say frustrated more than angry. Frustrated by opinions based clearly on a lack of knowledge and/or understanding and frustrated by what we see as continued attacks upon the Constitution. I would say angry at decisions made which are detrimental to society which were made based on religion like Abstinence only sex ed and no distribution of contraceptives (everywhere this occurred, there was a significant rise in teen pregnancies and STDs), blocking equal rights for all Americans, blocking scientific research, and of course eroding the value of an education attainable in public schools.

Btw, the things I mentioned which inspire anger and frustration don't just affect atheists. There are many Christian groups who feel the same way, as do Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and various other groups because the sentiments don't rise from a disagreement over a religion, but rather what's done in its name. I truly wish the whole argument were simply over whether or not there were any gods. If that was all there was to argue, then there'd be little point getting angry.

-- Posted by PhillyChief on Sat, Jan 17, 2009, at 10:36 AM


Check it out at PhillyChief's blog here.

Bush and the Bible

No beating around the bush, George does not believe the Bible is "literally" true.

Oh, boy! I can just hear his base blathering about how Bush fooled them and they should have known and he's probably drinking again and it's no wonder the economy is in the tank, and how could they have been such fools, and they wish he could run for prezident again so they could vote against him at least once!


Cynthia McFadden interviewed da Bush on ABC's Nightline. She asked him if he believed the Bible was literally true.

"You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son.'"

Evidently, George didn't realize how deep he had stepped into "it," and continued to ramble about how "Is is hard for me to justify or prove the mystery of the Almighty in my life. All I can just tell you is that I got back into religion and I quit drinking shortly thereafter and I asked for help. ... I was a one-step program guy."

It got worse, from say, James Dobson's point of view. Da Bush said he thinks the god to whom he prays is the same god as those with different religious beliefs. "I do believe," he said, "there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people."

Mein gott! He doesn't even mention Jesus as the only way of salvation!

And there's more to baffle the base. Da Bush, in a crushing blow to biblical literalista and creationistas said while he believed God created everything, that creation is not "incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."


He is, as he admitted, a "simple" prezident, and if he wasn't in charge of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth, no one would care what he believes about anything, but in 2000 and 2004, the christianists, convinced he shared their religious insanity, jumped on his bandwagon and got out the vote, proudly proclaiming da Bush was one of them.

Now it looks like the simpleton fooled them all - Dobson, Hagee, Reed, Parlsey, Warren, Osteen, Robertson, Falwell, Wildmon, Perkins, Sheldon and even Copeland!

Or, as Brody put it in his CBN blog: "At least he doesn't have to worry about winning the socially conservative base anymore because with comments like that, he'd have to go into damage control mode."


Actually, this is probably the first time in eight years that I have heard Bush say anything remotely sensible and sane. Unfortunately, it's too late to undo the damage caused by his friends on the right who made it possible for him to access the controls of power and destroy everything he touched, including the country he claimed to "love."

On gay marriage and the Bible

Sometimes I don't agree with Newsweek editor, Jon Meacham, at all.

But he's right on in his editorial in this weeks issue.

Meacham describes the schism in the Episcopal Church noting that it roots in the "conservative forces of reaction to the ecclesiastical and cultural acceptance of homosexuality" who claim "their opposition to the ordination and the marriage of gays ...[is] irrevocably rooted in the Bible--which they regard as the 'final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.'"

Aha! Meacham will have none of that! Whatever one's position on gay rights, he says, "this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism."

"Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt--it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition."


I've argued time and again that fundamentalists who want to pretend that the Bible is literally true and inerrant, fail to take that collection of material seriously, but rather use it as a magical talisman to justify whatever it is they want to hate at the moment.

Bishop Krister Stendahl, of Sweden, once said that the Bible is a very dangerous book, especially in the hands of the ignorant, for every evil cause on the face of the earth has been and is defended on the basis of the Bible.


Meacham notes first of all that sexual orientation is not something one chooses, "but is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color."

Then, even more to the point: "The analogy with race is apt, for Christians in particular long cited scriptural authority to justify and perpetuate slavery with the same certitude that some now use to point to certain passages in the Bible to condemn homosexuality and to deny the sacrament of marriage to homosexuals."

Leaving the word, "sacrament," out of the argument, for that is a specifically religious term which many would not understand, Meacham is again right on when he says "This argument from Scripture is difficult to take seriously ... since the passages in question are part and parcel of texts that, with equal ferocity, forbid particular haircuts."

Agreeing with Dr. Stendahl, Meacham points out that biblical texts "have been ready sources for those seeking to promote anti-Semitism and limit the human rights of women ... "

And all sorts of other evils...


But it is hard to see the light when you're bound between the covers of ancient darkness.

Biblical reasons to discount biblical pundits

Scott Ross, who writes a blog at cbn.com (cbn is Pat Robertson's christianist network), provides his readers [especially those concerned that Obama might be the anti-Christ] with a variety of biblical admonitions regarding voting, rulers and the role of believers.

These biblical admonitions, he says, are "ultimate truths" which "should give you peace and assurance that everything is under God's control, and He was not surprised by the outcome of the recent election."

That's a relief. I'd sure hate to think God wasn't up there pulling strings. He must have wanted Obama in the White House so we'll just have to put up with "that one."

But Mr. Ross offers a disclaimer: "These following verses get into the realm of individual free will and the ultimate sovereign will of God and His eternal purposes, which we don't always understand but must trust."

I don't get it. If God wanted us to understand something, why can't he just say so loudly and clearly so that everyone knows exactly what the hell he's talking about? How about a voice from heaven or an announcement on CNN from God's throne room - kinda like the pope prognosticating from his papal chair in Roma?

We need direction and clarity about this god stuff and bible stuff. If you tell ten people to read the same passage in the bible you'll get ten different interpretations. And that often leads to ill-will, anger, fistfights and lots of murder, as we've seen all through history. Seems like a pretty dumb way to do business.


Okay, here's a few of Ross's quotes. He's put them in categories and the first category is "God votes!"

1. Cast your votes but God has the final say (Proverbs 16:33) The actual wording from the Jewish Study Bible is: "Lots are cast into the lap; The decision depends on the Lord."

2. People are urged to "Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God" (Romans 13:1)

[This is nonsense, of course, and is a good example of what happens when you read the bible literally with the belief that it contains no errors or contradictions. Does Mr. Ross believe that Stalin and Hitler and Bush were "placed in power by God"? How about Saddam Hussein? My god, we took old Saddam out! If was placed in power by god, we're in deep ca-ca!]

3. "Because of Me, kings (all rulers) reign, and rulers make just laws. Rulers lead with My help, and nobles make righteous judgments." (Proverbs 8:15-16) The actual wording here, again from the Jewish Study Bible is: "Through me kings reign and rulers decree just laws; Through me princes rule, Great men and all the 'righteous judges."

[What Ross doesn't tell us is that this is one of the poems to the goddess, Wisdom. So that doesn't help much.]


Ross's other categories are: "...some good reasons to pray for those in authority;" and what to do "if you don't agree with a government's policies;" and "All rulers are ultimately accountable to God; whether they, or the nation, believe it or not;" and "...finally, be assured, God puts term limits on leaders."

He builds those categories on biblical foundations. For example, we are to "Pray for kings and all others who are in authority." We must "Never make light of the king, even in [our] thoughts," because "The king's heart is like a stream of water directed by the Lord."

Now, if you don't like your prez, remember this from Psalm 109:8: "Let his days be few, and let another take his office." Hell, I was praying that from the first day Bush took office but it took god almost 8 years to toss the clown out!


There is more but none of it makes any sense. Psalm 109:8, for example, is probably part of an enemy's curse, a common thing in the ancient Near East, and has no relevance whatsoever to our modern world.

Furthermore, biblical contradictions abound! They are embarrassing! But Ross's attempt to make the bible somehow relevant to 2008 exposes the impossibility of such efforts. He, like so many christianists, simply do not take the bible seriously for what it is, but use it like a magic charm.

Got a problem? Need some advice? Are you lonely? Feeling bad? Well, just thumb through the bible until you find a verse that gives you an answer or makes you feel better.

Like I said, it's Magic!


You can read Ross' article in its entirety here.

Christians are full of bull - on Wall Street

The Lord [Jesus] spoke to Cindy Jacobs during a church service. The Lord [Jesus] said: "Cindy, the strongman over America doesn't live in Washington, DC - the strongman lives in New York City! Call My people to pray for the economy."

Now when "the Lord" talks to you and tells you to do something, you sure as hell better do it! So, Cindy called "His" people "to converge on New York City the week of October 29 for an emergency prayer rally to cry out against economic collapse ... "

Oh, the Lord also told her that "October 29 was Black Tuesday, the day the stock market crashed and Satan wants to do it again."

Cindy, no slacker, cried out, "we need to P.U.S.H. (pray until something happens to avert financial judgment."

Why would god send financial judgment on his favorite people, the United States Americans? "[B]ecause" said Cindy, " ... not only for our stance towards Israel, but our blatant sin against Him in passing laws such as the one allowing homosexual marriage."

But it's not just Amurricans who have to worry. The Lord is sending his judgment on "the ideologies of nations. He is moving to put the fear of the Lord not only on His church, but upon the nations of the world."

Whew! That IS scary!


Not to worry. Cindy had an answer, a way out of the mess: "We are going to intercede at the site of the statute of the bull on Wall Street to ask God to begin a shift from the bull and bear markets to what we feel will be the 'Lion's Market,' or God's control over the economic systems."

She gets crazier: "While we do not have the full revelation of all this will entail, we do know that without intercession, economies will crumble."

So, these freaks went to the site of the bull and prayed for money.


Evidently, they don't bother actually reading the Bible they claim to revere. I'd suggest they gather at the site of a ass and have do a study on Mark 10:17-22. Methinks they might think twice about praying for money in front of a bull; actually, they might think twice about praying for money at all!

Now I know "good" Christians don't believe that the Law, which Jesus, the Jewish peasant, said he had come to fulfill and must be obeyed, applies to them; but they still go the Hebrew Bible to pull out select verses when they want to castigate some poor sinner, like a gay person.

Perhaps they should read more than one verse calling homosexuality an abomination. They would find that praying to a bull for money is right up at the top of the list of No-No's that God gave Moses - something about graven images, as I recall. Plus, there's a story in Exodus 32 which tells what happened to the Israelites when they collected all their gold and fashioned a "molten" calf. It wasn't pretty:

God told Moses his people were "a stiffnecked people." But more than that, in the scathing words of the KJV, God said, "Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them..."

Yikes!

Cindy Jacobs and her idolatrous cretins that followed her to pray before the bull better make tracks for some safe place, 'cause god is gonna get 'em! The bible says so!


Jesus Cristos! What a bunch of morons!

Did I hear a heavenly "bullshit!"?

h/t to Wonkette and Pharyngula

Christian Right prayers will give win to Obama

The prayer warriors are busy tonight. They've been busy for months and they'll be even busier tomorrow, pleading with their god that he/she do the "right" thing in this election, i.e., intervene so that Obama goes down to defeat and those two god-fearing paragons of righteousness, McCain and Palin, ascend to the house of White in the land of the lobbyists.

Most of these deluded religionists will try to avoid asking god directly to elect McCain and Palin - not all, of course, but most - for that would be presumptuous. God might get pissed. But, they "know," down deep in their wee little hearts, that god prefers the GOP ticket.


So, they'll pray something like this:

"Dear god, we stand at a crossroads for our nation, which you have so richly blessed because you like Americans better than any other people in the world, and we are afraid of the direction our nation will take under a bad, bad leader like the man whose last name starts with "O." We are afraid, O Lord, that he will lead the nation down the path of wickedness where unwanted babies are tossed from windows, and men will marry goats and women will marry horses. We're afraid for our families and for your vision of true marriage, O Lord.

"We've done all we can and it looks like it wasn't enough, so we are praying mightily, and we need you to hear our prayers, O Lord, so that our nation can continue in righteousness and we can invade other countries that our godly leaders tells us are part of the Axis of Evil. We can even invade countries outside of that Axis, O Lord, if it is your will and if you so instruct our godly leaders.

"We're also afraid, O Lord, that the bad, bad man whose last name starts with "O" will raise our taxes and then how will we tithe to our thousands of churches that carry out your work in the world? This bad, bad man will also want to provide health care to the poor, the elderly, the young, O Lord. You know how something like that can wreck a budget. And he'll no doubt want to regulate our free markets, O Lord. You know this last financial crisis was just a glitch and regulation is communistic and therefore a sin.

"O Lord, this bad, bad man will no doubt make our corporations pay more in taxes and cut emissions at a terrible cost and the trickle down effect will stutter to a halt and the poor will no longer get those measly drops of welfare they have become used to. He'll tax the small businessman, O Lord; your own Ms. Palin said so. The worst, of course, is that the billions we give in corporate welfare will be cut back. What will the rich, do, O Lord?

"Oh my god, he'll want to stop the righteous war in Iraq and bring our soldiers back which will mean that the entire Middle East - your land, O Lord - will be taken over by the Islamists who defy your name. Worse, O Lord, they might want to keep their own oil, and you know how that would hurt your favorite country. And the bad, bad man who would be president won't let us drill in the pristine Arctic, O Lord, like Ms. Palin says we should; he talks about alternative energy sources, O Lord, but you know that's because he hates powerful companies who invest their wealth to make more wealth for themselves.

"Dear Lord, hear our prayer. We are mightily afraid. It is even possible, O Lord, that our brother James, last name Dobson, O Lord - in case you forgot - won't be able to call up the White House and give instructions to our leaders if that bad, bad man is elected.

"So we pray that you hear our prayers for we know that you are the righteous one and you hear the prayers of your righteous followers. We pray that your will be done, O Lord. So, intervene, O Lord. Make the election process null and void. Flip those ballots, O Lord, that vote for the bad, bad man. Your will be done, O Lord."


The people who are doing all this praying contend that they are following the will of god as laid out in the Bible, the infallible, inerrant word of god. The problem is that it isn't that difficult to make, even an "infallible" and "inerrant" Bible say pretty much whatever one wants it to say. So, the anti-gay folks on the Christian right, take one verse out of the "Old Testament" in which they believe god condemns homosexuality. But they ignore hundreds of other "laws" or "commandments" of god.

Here are a few verses they always" seem to miss.

From Micah, the prophet:

"He [God] has told you, O man, what is good,
And what the Lord requires of you:
Only to do justice
And to love goodness,
And to walk modestly with your God;
Then you will achieve wisdom." [Micah 6:8 - The Jewish Study Bible]


From Jesus, the rabbi:

"How blest are those who show mercy;
mercy shall be shown to them. ...

How blest are the peacemakers;
God shall call them his sons." [Matthew 5:7, 9]

"Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to complete. I tell you this: so long as heaven and earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Law until all that must happen has happened." [Matthew 5:17 - 18]

"Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors; only so can you be children of your heavenly Father, who makes his sun rise on good and bad alike, and sends the rain on the honest and the dishonest. ... There must be no limit to your goodness ...

"Be careful not to make a show of your religion before men; if you do, no reward awaits you in your Father's house in heaven ...

"Again, when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; they love to say their prayers standing up in the synagogue [church] and at the street corners, for everyone to see them. I tell you this: they have their reward already. But when you pray, go into a room by yourself, shut the door, and pray to your Father who is there in the secret place ..." [Matthew 5:43-48; 6:1-6]

Then, this - especially appropriate for those who preach a "prosperity" gospel and the rich:

A young man asks: "...Good Master, what must I do to win eternal life? Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: "Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not give false evidence; do not defraud; honour your mother an father."' 'But, Master,' he replied, 'I have kept all these things since I was a boy.' Jesus looked straight at him; his heart warmed to him, and he said, 'One thing you lack: go, sell everything you have, and give to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven; and come, follow me.' At these words his face fell and he went away with a heavy heart; for he was a man of great wealth.'"


But what do we do with Paul's command in Romans 13?

"Every person must submit to the supreme authorities. There is no authority but by act of God, and the existing authorities are instituted by him; consequently anyone who rebels against authority is resisting a divine institution ... For government, a terror to crime, has no terrors for good behaviour. You wish to have no fear of the authorities? Then continue to do right and you will have their approval, for they are God's agents working for your good. ... That is why you are obliged to submit. It is an obligation imposed not merely by fear of retribution but by conscience. That is also why you pay taxes. The authorities are in God's service and to these duties they devote their energies. ...

"Discharge your obligations to all men; pay tax and toll, reverence and respect, to those to whom they are due. Leave no claim outstanding against you, except that of mutual love. He who loves his neighbour has satisfied every claim of the law. ..."


Very few, if any of us, believe that Paul was right about blind obedience to the authorities. In fact, if our beloved Founding Fathers followed Paul, we would still be bowing and scraping before an English king or queen! And Paul would have considered our Constitution an abomination! Was he wrong about paying taxes, too? And if not, why all the carping about paying taxes amongst the McCain/Palin followers?


The point, my friends, [to quote Mr. McCain] is that when push comes to shove [to cite a well-worn cliche], those on the Christian Right pick and choose (just like everyone else) those verses in the Bible that best confirm their theological prejudices.

And the Christian rightists of our time ignore, for the most part, the teachings of Jesus.

Nowhere has that been clearer than during this election. There's a reason why they ignore the Jesus we read of in the Gospels. That Jesus sits in judgment upon, not only their distorted and hateful theology, but on their politics, which is driven, of course, by their distorted and hate-filled theology.

Which means that if god picks up on their prayers and if "his will be done," Obama's a lock for the presidency.

Praise God!

[All New Testament quotations are from The New English Bible]

Jesus hates homos (?)

It's right there in the bible. The New Testament. Somewhere. I think.

You remember how you were taught in Sunday School that Jesus chased homos all over Palestine, cursing them and calling for them to be stoned. Homosexuality was his main agenda. He hated homos. You can read all about it in Matt, Marcus, Lukey and Juan.

For example, in one of those books, Jesus said, "Let them [homosexuals] be accursed. I call down upon these deviates the wrath of Almighty God (my dad), and shall see them burn forever in hell." I'm sorry, but I can't remember the actual chapter and verse.

You may also recall that Jesus suspected Peter might be a little gay. That's the real reason he said, "Get thee away from me, Satan!"

And you remember when he told the Samaritan woman at the well she had had too many husbands. The word, "husbands," was obviously a euphemism for female lovers.

Pilate, the Roman governor, "washed his hands of Jesus," because Pilate was gay [well, actually, he was bi-sexual] and he was thoroughly pissed at Jesus' rants about homos. That's why the Romans hung Jesus on the cross. They figured they'd get rid of this homo-hating Jew once and for all.


Well, they got rid of Jesus but they didn't get rid of his hatred of homosexuality. Most of his followers from the very beginning took up the cause and drummed any suspected gays out of the new churches they were building.

But as the church grew down through the ages, homo-hatred abated somewhat, as many of the clergy were homosexuals--closeted mostly. It appears that is still the case in the Roman Catholic Church.

Today, though, lots of Christians [mostly the fundy Bible-lovers] hate homos. There's one group called The Traditional Values Coalition that makes it their business to hate homos and do everything it can to make the lives of homosexuals miserable. They are just following Jesus, they say, who is going to send every homosexual, pedophile deviate straight to eternal hellfire.

On the TVC website, they warn that "The homosexual activist movement and organized pedophiles are linked together by a common goal: To gain access to children for seduction into homosexuality."

You know, I think I remember Jesus preaching about that once. It was right after he changed the water into wine at Cana. Most of the people present thought he was drunk as a skunk.


Even the liberal Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S. has been infected by homo hating clergy and lay people. In our town, the oldest and largest Episcopal church broke away from the Episcopal denomination because the Episcopal church has allowed a gay person to be ordained as a bishop. Several California Episcopal churches and many of the Episcopal churches in the Pittsburgh diocese have done the same thing for the same reason.

The leaders and the members of these churches love Jesus so much, they say, and they want to follow him so desperately, that they must set off to establish their own "pure" churches where they can avoid the toxic illness that is homosexuality. They stress that the Bible says homosexuality is bad, sinful, an abomination. They probably have read all those passages in the Gospels that tell how Jesus beat up on homos in Galilee and Samaria and Jerusalem.

Then there's a homo-hating priest in England who is trying to love Jesus and hate homos, like all good Christians should. He's a priest in the Church of England [that's the same outfit as the Episcopal church in this country] and his name is Peter Mullen and he's the chaplain to the London Stock Exchange.

Mullen has a blog. On that blog he wrote that gays should be forcibly tattooed with a sodomy warning, a warning like the one on a package of cigarettes. "Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan 'Sodomy can seriously damage your health,' their chins with 'Fellatio kills.'" [It appears he was talking about male homosexuals. I don't know what he'd suggest for lesbians.]

He also called for the banning of Gay Pride parades. And Mullen blasted a fellow clergyman for "blessing the civil partnership of two fellow clerics."

Jesus said, as I'm sure you know: "Church of England priests in the 21st century C.E. shall not join in civil partnerships with members of the same sex." I believe that's from the Gospel of St. Sybil.


Holy crap! What if all these people are wrong? What if Mullen is wrong? Mullen's the chaplain of the London Stock Exchange! Maybe the crashing market is a sign that Jesus has changed his mind about homos. Maybe when he got back up to his father in heaven he learned that his father really does love all people no matter their race, creed, or sexual orientation.

Wouldn't that be something?