Fundie Watch

Christians Show Their Love By Promoting Bullying

2009-04-17T19:23:00.003-04:00

Jesus spoke of peace, love, sharing, helping those in need, and, of course, beating the shit out of gay people. At least, that's what Mat Staver with (Lack of) Liberty Counsel thinks.

Today's piece comes from OneNeuronNow (a little insult I have to thank Ron B. for!). It's entitled "It's okay to speak up on 'Day of Silence'" and is written by Pete Chagnon. The "Day of Silence" is a project of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. It's designed as a protest against the unfair treatment of gays and transgendered students by their ignorant redneck classmates. Which means, it has absolutely jack all to do with anything other than preventing bullying. It does not promote homosexuality or gay groups' political agenda, unless you think there's something seedy and sinister about preventing bullying. Which, of course, the fundies do, unless they're the victims.

The annual "Day of Silence" will be observed today (April 17) in schools across the nation, but a legal organization says individuals have the right to speak up.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. That's what the First Amendment is for. You have the right to participate or not participate in any event, movement, agenda, or group you feel like, and nobody can stop you. Nobody ever implied they wanted to.

The Day of Silence is an event sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Participants are encouraged to remain silent throughout the day as a show of solidarity to their homosexual peers whom they believe are being bullied and silenced on campus.

Wouldn't you know it? The fundies got something right. I suppose it had to happen sooner or later.

Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal organization, contends that school officials have overstepped their bounds in punishing or threatening students who refuse to participate in the Day of Silence.

Yes, they probably have. Or at least, they would have if that ever happened. But I'm sure a citation will be coming any day now. Stay tuned!

According to a press release, a school principal in Florida told a father that if his son skipped school on the Day of Silence, then the child would fail the school year.

What press release? Where? Who wrote it? What newspaper is it in? When did this happen? What school? Who is the principal? Do you have a quote?

No, of course not, because this is One-Sided News Now. "We report (whatever we feel like)! You decide (that we're right)!"

For the record, I'm not in favor of failing a student for an entire school year for missing one day, for any reason. I do, however, think the kid should get an unexcused absence for that day.

In Indiana, parents were told that it was against the law to cancel the Day of Silence.

What do you mean "to cancel the Day of Silence?" Who wanted to cancel it, the school or the parents? How were they going to "cancel" it?

In South Dakota, a student was told that if she did not attend school on the Day of Silence she had to write a paper explaining her absence.

And that's a problem why? Do other students have to write papers for missing days as well?

And in Oklahoma, a student was told that if the Day of Silence was not permitted then the school could not permit Christian clubs.

GAHH! The student "was told?" By whom? In what context? Why? I can't even refute most of this bullshit, because it's so light on facts I don't even know what's going on. That is, if I had any reason to believe these things happened at all. Where did Pete Chagnon get his journalism degree? Clown college?

In response, Liberty Counsel has released a legal memorandum that explains student rights concerning the Day of Silence.

I wouldn't trust Liberty Counsel with a speeding ticket. My only advice for people thinking about reading that "legal memorandum" is to tread very, very carefully.

According to Liberty Counsel, students who interfere with or disrupt school activities are not protected under the First Amendment --

I'll say it again: No shit, Sherlock.

-- and if a teacher asks a question during class, students do not have the right to remain silent.

So, does that mean that if a teacher asks a question, and a student answers it, all the other students in the class have committed a crime?

Yes, yes, I know what the fundies are trying to say. Luckily, GLSEN has that covered.

Some schools ask students to speak as they normally would during class and remain silent during breaks and at lunch. There is no single way to participate, and students are encouraged to take part in the way that is the most positive and uplifting for their school.

Anyway, let's get back to the fundies:

Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, says when it comes to the Day of Silence, silence is not an option.

Yeah, I know. You just said that.

"Students have the right not to remain silent," he adds. "Students can refuse to attend school. They may mount a counter-protest in support of purity and the traditional family.

Yeah, or they could just go about their business and not participate (if the idea of not abusing people is really that offensive to them...)

Staver argues that while schools may be required to allow clubs on campus, they do not have to promote the Day of Silence. And he says they do "not have to recognize clubs that promote sexual promiscuity."

I agree. In fact, I think schools should NOT recognize clubs that promote promiscuity. Now, if only someone were trying to start one!

Oh yes, let's run down a few comments from the peanut gallery, shall we?

I hope that there many students with the courage to speak out in truth today. There is way too much misinformation being spread about this so-called "life style" choice.

Ya got that right! Too bad it's people like you who are the ones spreading the misinformation.

"And in Oklahoma, a student was told that if the Day of Silence was not permitted then the school could not permit Christian clubs." - How do the two compare?? A day for promoting bad bedroom practices vs a religious club? Just not seeing the correlation here. Unless the person was trying to say that these bad bedroom practices are actually a religion... But, on another note: Why does one need a day to promote their weird/bad bedroom practices? How about one to celebrate normal bedroom practices?

"Bad bedroom practices?" What? This is a day to speak out against bullies. Who's talking about "bad bedroom practices?"

I wonder how much money GLSEN has given to 'public schools' to push this agenda?

What are you talking about, you idiot? Schools aren't for sale! And the Day of Silence isn't being sponsored by any school!

What would happen if Muslims or Mexicans or red-headed step children wanted a day specifically for them? Guaranteed they would be shunned!!!

That's not how the argument works. You're trying to point out hypocrisy, but all you've done is list two groups that liberals traditionally support, plus one that just doesn't make any sense. You're supposed to say something like, "What if Christians wanted a day!?!?!?!11oneoneeleventy"

Just more of 'special interest' pushing their values down "every one's throat." And no, it's not "just the Christians" complaining; it's Americans!!!!

You're an idiot.

Praying at the flag pole before school is not the same as refusing to speak all day. And it is especially sad if you have teachers doing the same. They're not doing their job then.

Whoever said teachers were silent?

And the examples given in the article show that some students would be bullied for choosing to speak, which is actually kind of ironic. I am so thankful to live in a conservative area where my kids don't have to deal with this stuff.

Deal with what "stuff?" Mean, nasty liberals trying to tell them they can't pick on the gays? "Willie, please! The students want to pick on someone their OWN size!"

Why are political agendas being promoted in public schools, paid for by all taxpayers?

Paid for by taxpayers? What the hell are you talking about? Why do you idiots insist on bringing up taxes every time something happens you don't like?

And really, what is it you think all those taxes are going to? Does it cost a lot of money to shut up? Because in your case, I'm willing to dig.

It's appalling to bring our children into this debate. Parents should be taking their children out of school today. This is an issued between parents and children and not to be relegated by educators. This day of silence should not be allowed in our public schools particularly in view of the policies regarding prayer, moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance being banned.

Wow, you make even less sense than the last guy. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Would it kill you to take a few seconds to read over your pithy little diatribes before you post them? Because really--you sound like a dumbass.

Finally, one more quote, this time from a reader who seems to have his/her head screwed on straight.

Of course students don't have to remain silent. Nobody is trying to say that they do. And the Day of Silence is not a school sponsored event, it is a CLUB sponsored event. Skipping school under any circumstances is never acceptable, so no - students won't be excused from classes simply because they disagree with the message some students are sharing. They don't have to do anything at all, other than abstain from harrassing those who do choose to remain silent. As a Christian, I think it is ridiculous to throw a fit over the Day of Silence. I would be extremely angry if students starting skipping school in protest of my son's private choice to pray at the flag pole each morning. We shouldn't allow our children to skip school because some students are choosing to observe this silence.

You, sir, are NOT a fundie.

Right-Wing Lunatic Andy Schlafly and his Midterm Exams

2009-04-01T20:20:00.005-04:00

Somewhere, somehow, Andy Schlafly got it into his head that he should be a teacher. Not just any teacher, but a teacher of children. (Certainly not of college students...wouldn't want to risk developing some professor values!)

So, as part of his goal to indoctrinate young minds (while simultaneously accusing liberals of indoctrination), Andy has started posting World History lectures on Conservapedia. This means--and folks, it twists my stomach into knots to say this--there are students actually studying under Andy and his deranged tutelage.

Now, Andy is very proud of his big classes, and even wrote an essay on how great they are. A really shitty one, mind you, but it's there. And yet he opposes public schools, which, I can only guess, aren't overcrowded enough for him.

So what kinds of things is the Assfly teaching in his lectures? To find out, let's check out some of the questions on the World History Midterm Exam!

1. The person who lived almost precisely between Abraham and us today (on a timeline) was: (a) Moses (b) David (c) Jesus (d) Constantine (e) William the Conqueror

What kind of a stupid question is that? Who cares? And how can you prove the answer is correct? (The answer is Jesus, if you're interested, which I doubt you are.)

10. This person may have done more unintentionally to prepare the world for the spread of Christianity than any other single person:
(a) Paul of Taurus
(b) Alexander the Great
(c) Attila the Hun
(d) Constantine
(e) Hannibal

The answer Andy is looking for is Attila the Hun. Apparently leading a barbarian invasion against Christian Rome is really good for Christians. Even better than the guy who made Christianity the official religion of Rome. Although Constantine didn't do it "unintentionally," it's an obviously leading question.

And really, how do you answer the question of who "may have" done something the most?

11. Christianity is different from other major religions in which respects?
(a) its use of logic
(b) its emphasis on love
(c) its emphasis on faith
(d) numerous miracles were performed by its founder
(e) all of the above

(f) The fact that it has a wacked-out online pseudo-encyclopedia treating it as if it were fact? Naturally, (e) is the answer Andy says is the "correct" one, because apparently there are no other religions that emphasize faith. Or love, which means the Muslim wedding I attended last summer was a figment of my imagination. And I'm sure an objective reading of any religion would turn up no one who believes that miracles were performed or their beliefs are logical.

Why don't you just go ahead and say it, Andy: "I believe Christianity is the only true religion, and if you don't, I'll mark off points!"

16. Which of these South American civilizations is compared most to the ancient Greek civilization in terms of achievement?
(a) Moche
(b) Maya
(c) Inca
(d) Aztec
(e) Toltec

Andy thinks it's the Mayans, but he doesn't say who's doing the comparing. Probably not anyone with any sense, because those people know that the Mayans weren't a South American civilization.

19. Which was the most successful Crusade?
(a) the Children’s Crusade
(b) Number 1
(c) Number 2
(d) Number 3
(e) Number 4

The Children's Crusade? I'd never heard of that one, so I looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently, the crusade was when a two kids led two different bands of wanderers across Europe. Neither of them got to Jerusalem and most of them disbanded when the "Crusaders" all died or went home. That's what Andy thinks is the "most successful Crusade."

22. Which of the following best describes the greatest commandment of Islam?
(a) Love each other
(b) Love Allah
(c) Submit to Allah
(d) Believe in reincarnation
(e) Avoid prayer

Submit to Allah is the correct answer. Hmm, where have I heard that before? No, no indoctrination going on here, right kids? It's just a simple question with a simple answer, and absolutely no ulterior motives!

24. Once might say that President Lyndon Johnson did not know much world history when he unsuccessfully involved the United States heavily in the Vietnam War. Why might one say that?
(a) Because the Vietnamese treated women much better than the Chinese did.
(b) Because the Vietnamese treated women much worse than the Chinese did.
(c) Because the Vietnamese were the only people able to defeat the Chinese.
(d) Because the Vietnamese defeated three attempts by the Mongols to conquer Hanoi.
(e) Because Vietnam is a very small country.

Andy is looking for answer choice (d). Okay, the answer is kind of logical, based on both the outcome of the Vietnam War and the inference drawn here (if you ignore all the changes the world went through between the Mongol invasion and ours!). But the way it's worded makes it painfully obvious that isn't so much a world history question as it is a slap at President Johnson.

35. Who said the following (translated into English): “The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality”:
(a) Dante
(b) David Hume
(c) John Wycliffe
(d) Buddha
(e) Machiavelli

The answer is Dante, but yet again, we have a question that's really just an Andy Talking Point. In this case, the fact that Dante said it is really secondary to the fact that Andy really just wants everybody to know how much he hates people being neutral on moral issues. Which is odd considering how much scorn he heaps on liberals versus how little he says about people who have no opinions about things. Curse those neutral bastards, always not shoving their opinions in people's faces and not harassing people who disagree with them!

41. “God is defined as perfection; existence is part of perfection; therefore God must exist.” That argument is similar to:
(a) Martin Luther’s proof of the existence of God.
(b) Anselm’s ontological proof of the existence of God
(c) Anselm’s cosmological proof of the existence of God
(d) Thomas Aquinas’s ontological proof of the existence of God
(e) Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological proof of the existence of God

(f) A steaming pile of horse shit?

Andy thinks the correct answer is (d). I don't know how Aquinas' ontological proof of God goes, but I sure hope it's better than Andy's!

And then of course, we have the ho-ho fun extra credit questions, separated by gender! (At least this time, they didn't segregate the whole damn test.)

(Girls only) An example of modern chivalry for girls would be all of the following EXCEPT:
(a) protecting a young child whose parent is distracted by something else
(b) thanking a boy who offers to help carry something
(c) lightening the stress on boys and men, who live on average 7 years less than girls and women
(d) insisting on participating in an all-boy activity like tackle football
(e) welcoming a boy when he might feel awkward

Well, gee, Andy, I have no idea! I'm sure I wouldn't notice your ludicrously over-the-top signposting that it's answer choice (d), could it?

Do any of the women reading this blog think they could probably whip Andy and his pansy ass good in an "all-boy activity like tackle football?" Too bad you'll never find out, because you need to stop "insisting" that you be allowed to play and get back in the kitchen!

(Boys only) An example of modern chivalry for boys would be all of the following EXCEPT:
(a) protecting a girl from danger that you recognize but she does not
(b) showing good sportsmanship after winning or losing an athletic contest
(c) thanking a girl for making chocolate brownies that you enjoyed
(d) showing initiative and welcoming a girl when she enters a room
(e) making a joke at the expense of people having physical handicaps

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to "protect a girl from danger" if I'm too insecure in my masculinity to even let her join my football game. So I'll just go ahead and pick (e). Too bad for Andy, I'm still allowed to make fun of people with mental handicaps!

Anti-Choice Movement Cranks Up the Lying Spin Machine

2009-03-28T11:53:00.003-04:00

Isn't there a commandment about "thou shalt not bear false witness" or something? Doesn't that mean fundies aren't supposed to lie? If so, why do they lie all the time?

It's most egregious in regard to abortion. Fundies will lie, cheat, and break the law if it means their precious undifferentiated clumps of cell matter won't be plucked out. (Too bad they don't care as much about full-grown human beings as they do about fetuses; we'd have a lot fewer wars.) Do the fundies get as steamed up every time a woman has her period?

Pastor Walter Hoye has spent a week in a California jail on charges related to his ministry at a Berkeley abortion clinic.

Oh really? His "ministry?" Is that what they're calling it these days? Cuz somehow, I doubt it has much to do with "ministry."

Hoye was ordered to serve 30 days in jail and pay a $1,000 fine after refusing the court's offer of probation. Catie Short of the Life Legal Defense Foundation explains that Hoye declined probation because the court ordered him not to help women.

Really? The court "ordered him not to help women?" Yeah. I bet.

Or maybe that's another lie, and the court ordered him to stay the hell away from the abortion clinic and stop harassing the women who went in.

While we're at it, let's unpack that bit about him refusing the probation offer--which, by the way, was the prosecutor's offer, not the court's. Courts don't make "offers" because courts don't deal with defendants.

The minister could have walked away with three years probation, and refused to take it. In other words, he's a sanctimonious prick who wanted to martyr himself. He's a minister with a Jesus complex.

Here's a first-hand account of what went on at sentencing, written in painful, melodramatic prose. I don't know why you'd want to read it, but I've posted it in case you want to exercise your eyeballs by rolling them a lot (or if you want some details).

"He told the court that he would do his best to comply with the law," says Short. "It's not like he's saying, 'I'm going to go out there and violate the law.'"

Really? Because I'm pretty sure that's EXACTLY what he's saying. According to the Oakland Tribune article I linked above, it's illegal for anyone to get within 8 feet of a woman entering an abortion clinic. Pastor Hoye did that, willfully. How is he not guilty? How do you figure he's not specifically trying to violate this law?

"'But in the meantime, I want to be able to go and offer alternatives to women who are considering abortion.'"

BULLSHIT.

Stop lying, you shameless, disgusting fundie. You're a liar, and you're lying right now.

STOP. FUCKING. LYING.

You don't give a flying shit about "offering alternatives" to women. They're not "considering abortion," they're heading in to have one. They've already considered abortion, and they've considered your alternatives. They made their choice, and now you and your awful, shameless ilk are trying to guilt them into changing their minds.

If you really wanted to just "go and offer alternatives" you wouldn't walk up to women at the door of a clinic. You wouldn't stand around all day carrying a sign that says "Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help you!" And you sure as hell wouldn't break the law, then make a big show of what a hero you are.

You're a sick fuck, Pastor Hoye.

The judge ordered him to stay 100 yards away from the abortion clinic, which Short calls a severe restriction on free speech. She has also filed suit in federal court asking that the ordinance Hoye violated be declared unconstitutional.

Which will be promptly tossed out of court because Catie Short is an idiot who didn't study her constitutional law. It is firmly held that restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech are well within the government's powers, and that there are solid constitutional foundations for restricting protests in front of abortion clinics.

"We are filing motions for summary judgment May 1, and they'll be heard on June 5, and we are very optimistic the court will find the law to be unconstitutional," she adds.

And you feel this way because you're either a moron or deluded or both.

For those who don't know, a motion for summary judgment asks the court to rule that there is no triable issue of fact for a court to decide, and that because of this, the lawsuit should be decided right now in my favor. Here, the issue is whether a restriction on clinic protesting is constitutional. Caitlin Short is arguing that the answer is so blindingly obvious that a judge should just rule and be done with it.

On that issue, at least, I agree with her. The judge should rule against her in short order and send her packing (which is a perfectly legal thing to do, even when she's the one who filed for summary judgment!).

According to Short, Hoye is spending his time behind bars talking to inmates about Jesus -- just as he did at the abortion clinics.

That should open up a new area of practice for the good reverend's ministry: overcoming his homosexuality. Because if he keeps annoying inmates, he's going to end up as somebody's bitch.

Spring Break Is More Fun When You Bring Your Parents!

2009-03-16T20:05:00.003-04:00

I wish I could party with Rebecca Hagelin. She's a real barrel of laughs, that one. Maybe one day, if I'm really lucky, I'll be able to go on Spring Break with my parents too! What am I talking about? Read Christian Worldview Network's Why Have "Girls Gone Wild?" and see for yourself!

Spring break is in full swing for many college students across the country. And believe me, when I say "full swing," I mean full-rockin', rollin' party-hearty swinging!

Awesome! Now where's my Speedo? I want in!

But given that nearly all of these students' lifestyles are still funded by their parents, and that nearly all are still under the legal drinking age, it makes me wonder: What are their parents thinking?

I don't know, maybe that the drinking age is an unnecessarily restrictive, arbitrary number considering you can buy cigarettes, porn, and lottery tickets and go to war at age 18? Maybe that their teenagers know how to safely approach alcohol consumption, like they do in most every other country in the world? Or, on that same topic, that the drinking age in Mexico is 18 so there's nothing illegal going on at all? Or maybe it's just that Rebecca Hagelin doesn't have the right to tell them how to raise their own kids!?

As a mom of two college men I actually find it fairly easy to boldly proclaim: "If you are livin' on my dime, then you are livin' by my rules."

That's fair. Of course, what's also fair is that "your rules" make sense. Oh yes, and let's make sure the inverse is true here too, Beckers. Does that mean that if your kids AREN'T "livin' off your dime," that you'll shut up and allow them to live their lives as they see fit? Even if you disagree with it?

My rules for them as adults are actually filled with freedom, coupled with the principle of "self government." They were raised with this consistent theme, and they understand that my husband and I practice the "abuse and lose" approach. (I.e., they have both freedom and our full support as long as they follow basic rules that provide for their safety, moral development, and future.)

Oh yes, I'm sure the lives of a fundie's kid are "filled with freedom." Freedom to pray five times a day. Freedom to not have sex. Freedom to not drink. Freedom to watch all kinds of educational programming on TV...

Of course, I can hear the naysayers now: "But they're adults. You can't tell adult children what to do." To this I simply answer, "BALONEY!"

I am a much-older adult, and I understand that an employer can impose certain codes and expectations for my behavior on me. That's the deal in life -- you work for someone, you have to play by their rules. (Of course I know they can't trample your basic rights, deny civil liberties, etc. So don't go there. You know what I'm talking about.)

No, I really don't know what you're talking about. I'm fine with you setting the rules when you're paying the bills, but of course, the uncomfortable flip side to that is, again, that when you're not paying, you back the hell off.

Further, home life does not equal a job. Bosses don't get to restrict employees' freedom because they're paying, they get to restrict employees' freedom because employees are expected to do their work, and do it for the employer. But when you clock out, you're on your own. Hagelin's idea ignores the fact that if you start running your kids lives at home (simply on the grounds that you hold the purse strings), that leaves nowhere for them to go to simply be left to their own devices.

I'm not arguing that a parent doesn't have the right to set some reasonable boundaries for their own house, just that "I can do it because their boss can!" is a false analogy.

The young college men in my life -- of whom I am so very proud and blessed to be called their "mom" -- also know that my husband and I are fully committed to them as individuals and will provide plenty of opportunities for good, safe fun.

Yeah, that sounds riotous. I bet their lives are just one screaming orgasm.

Let's get back to Spring Break as an example. Instead of shrugging our shoulders and letting them go off to some distant beach where mayhem, alcohol and "Girls Gone Wild" abound, I booked a house at our favorite beach, which is located on a barrier island on Florida's Gulf Coast. With no bridge (you have to get here by boat) and no bars, this break is a lot safer and a lot more meaningful than what many are experiencing.

That sounds like me when I was in college. My boyz and I were all sitting around planning where we were going that year, trying to come up with the most "meaningful" Spring Break we could come up with. We realized the most "meaningful" Spring Break we could have should be spent hunkered down at a single-sex retreat with our dads memorizing Bible passages! The Lord was totally with us that week! What a great time! I had a hard-on for Jesus!

One of my dear friends has a house nearby and her daughter, also on Spring Break, has brought about nine of her "best friends" too. So, there's plenty of social activity, fun and friendship without the nonsense.

Yeah, I bet those kids were all begging to pile on that party bus. "Mom!" they cried. "Why can't you chaperone us this year? We want a trip that doesn't have any of that 'nonsense!' Like beer, hot chicks, and fun!"

The kids go back and forth between our houses, so my friend and I both get to spend time with them and listen to their entertaining -- and interesting -- chatter.

Last night the gang was at my friend's house and the main topic of conversation proved an-eye-opening, mind-numbing experience for her.

She discovered they made pants for women too?

Most of the girls on this trip are freshmen, and somehow the conversation led to a shared humiliating experience now common at most college campuses: the mandatory co-ed, sex-ed course they all attended during their first few weeks on campus. They described the graphic nature of the class, and how embarrassed and outraged they were when they were shown how to put a condom on a banana.

Pffff...BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, my God, kid! Oh, I needed that! That's fucking rich! Oh, boy. (wipes tear away)

Kid, if watching someone clam dam a piece of fruit makes you "embarrased and outraged," you're gonna have one hell of a miserable life!

But then it got worse -- they were all encouraged to do the condom/banana exercise, too. The girls spoke of how a couple of their fellow students seemed to take great pride at their skill in demonstrating what seemed an all-too-familiar maneuver. However, my young friends said they were mortified and left the course feeling "trashy" and belittled by administration officials who expect them to all behave like wild animals in heat.

Uh, last I checked, "wild animals in heat" don't take the time lay out the bone blanket before they get to it. Maybe the fact that you all felt "trashy" is because you grew up in a sexually repressed environment that brainwashed you to think sex was some kind of dark, dirty secret that you should be ashamed of (and that spending Spring Break chaperoned by your mom is somehow fun!).

"They seemed to be encouraging us to be sexually active," one member of the volley ball team said. "I was insulted and offended by the entire experience."

Yeah, we know. You keep saying it.

This particular young co-ed had gone to a private Christian high school, so she had managed to escape the low expectations that many educators bring to today's youth. She and her mom weren't aware that in today's public schools, millions of boys and girls are now, indeed, treated as if they are going to be sex-crazed creatures and, therefore, are actually encouraged to engage in risky behavior.

Encouraged, are they? Either something has radically changed since I was in public school, or the fundies have a warped view of reality. (I'll let you figure this one out!)

And what's this about "low expectations?" I presume this means that schools don't expect kids to remain abstinent. Well, I'm not sure how "low" an expectation that is, considering how many teens are having sex.

Face it: When an adult in authority stands in front of the classroom and directs graphic discussions of sex in every form, forces boys and girls to sit by each other throughout the humiliating lectures, and then further violates the child's natural tendencies to be private or modest, then you end up with kids who follow what they've been taught. On the other hand, when kids are treated with dignity, taught the value of abstinence...

Really? That's great. So all we have to do is stop all the sex ed classes that have no abstinence component. That shouldn't take long, since no such classes exist.

...and how to avoid placing themselves in compromising situations in the first place, the research shows that more of them do, indeed, respond by adopting a lifestyle of self-control and more responsible behavior than those drowning in "sex ed".

"The research" shows absolutely nothing of the sort. It shows that abstinence-only programs are a colossal, embarrassing failure. It shows that the highest rate of teen pregnancy is in the Bible Belt, where Rebecca Hagelin's reactionary shaming is the strongest.

Or perhaps the stats she's quoting only apply to people who are "drowning" in sex ed. If that's the case, well, sorry, I don't have stats for places where people "drown" in sex ed.

Also critical to the delayed on-set of sexual activity is parental involvement. I can not overstate the influence that loving, connected parents have on their teens and young adult children. You'll find loads of data and research on both points at www.abstinenceclearninghouse.com and www.familyfacts.org.

You won't, however, find any of those stats on sites that don't have a far-right religious agenda to push.

Which, once again, brings me back to the plethora of wild Spring Break "pah-tays" going on around the country as you read this. I wonder: if more public junior high and high schools joined hands with more parents in teaching abstinence education, the concepts of self-worth and basic morality, wouldn't our nation's kids have a higher view of themselves and rise to meet the expectations?

Only if having fun is somehow rooted in feeling sorry for yourself. Did it ever occur to you that college kids go to wild parties just because they want to?

Oh, sure, it would be nice if we could pin excuses for our kids behavior on things. "They're depressed, so they drink. They don't value themselves, so they have sex." Unfortunately, in the real world, people do things Rebecca Hagelin disapproves of, and there's no other reason than because they want to. Sorry, Beck, that's just the way it is.

And if colleges and parents expected better of our kids, wouldn't more of them choose the higher ground? If more parents took the effort to provide safer -- but still "way fun" -- supervised beach trips and other options for college kids, would more of them opt for something other than the drunken orgies that many Spring Break trips have become? In short, are older adults getting exactly the type of behavior from young adults that we expect?

Granted, my personal "focus group" is small. But the data, my experience, and the e-mails I receive from thousands of people tell me this: Young adults are still malleable, still looking for direction, and still crave to rise above the status quo. But they need help and encouragement. They need to be told that they can be self-controlled people of strong character, and they need to be provided with opportunities to thrive, have fun, and become men and women they can be proud of.

No. Because none of that sounds fun. And frankly, telling your kids that it is won't make it so.

Whether kids are or are not "looking for direction," the fact remains that they're not going to swallow whatever load of horseshit you happen to serve them. And sometimes, no matter what activity parents can put together, kids won't enjoy, simply because it came from their parents. These are facts of life, Rebecca, and much as you'd like to raise smiling little Stepford children, you won't. And you can't. And if you continue f0rce your stifling moralizing down their throats, you're going to lose them forever.

Young adults rise or fall to the expectation levels set for them. Will you help raise the bar?

Now who's treating kids like animals?

Adjusting the Blog List

2009-03-10T21:43:00.004-04:00

I've had to do some unfortunate tweaking of the blog list lately. Unfortunate that is, because I've had to make some cuts. I don't like removing people from my links, so if you're a blogger who used to be there, and you're wondering why you've been dumped, I've attempted to provide my best reasons for why I did it.

Creationist Lies: This was an easy one; it's a dead blog. There are only seven posts and the last one was dated May 4, 2008.

What Is Going On?: This is actually a pretty good blog. I like the visual layout, and the articles always tend to be fairly clear, detailed, and well-researched. The problem is, I almost NEVER agree with the author, and I don't see a lot of connection between my writings and hers. What Is Going On? is a libertarian, anti-authority, anti-government blog, and I'm more just anti-annoying moralism. The author, swfreedomlover, and I originally thought there would be a lot of overlap between the two subjects, but it seems we almost never do. You're certainly welcome to keep reading her if that's your thing, but I really don't see much in the way of our readership cross-pollinating.

Evolved and Rat/i/onal: This blog, while frequently about religion, doesn't have much in common with mine either. ER promotes atheism and is viciously anti-religion and anti-religious people, which I am most definitely not. What's more, the blog has moved away from tackling religious subjects and has more moved into basically writing about whatever is on the author's mind at the moment, leading me to feel like it's less written for readers and more written for the blogger's own benefit. Most posts now promote hacker culture, software piracy, and those painful-to-read insult fights in the comments. I really don't want to be associated with any of that, especially the parts that brush up against (or cross) the line of legality.

On the positive side, I've added a new blog, Morgan's Fun Ranting Corner. It's hard to tell exactly how this one will fit in, but it looks good for now. I recommend you check it out when you get the time.

The Conservative Wunderkind

2009-03-08T18:39:00.003-04:00

There's been some press this week about Jonathan Krohn, the 13-year-old boy genius who delivered a speech at CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) last week.

A political prodigy? The future of the GOP? I'm not so sure. If you want to see the video, here's a link from Huffington Post.

And now, my two cents. These are also posted on the new FSTDT message boards at www.fstdt.net. Please note the new URL (because I'm too lazy to change it).

The minimum age to be President is 35, so he'll be able to run in 22 years. Still long enough for me to forget everything I just saw in that video.

Because frankly--and I say this not just to be an asshole, but because I speak from experience--that speech sucks. The substance (of which there isn't any), the rhetorical flow, the attempts at humor...it's all terrible. Yes, I said the flow. Even though the kid is getting high praise for his delivery, even that was weak. Not the worst part, and he does pretty well with it, but he had his problems with that too.

Here's a few highlights, as I have it on in my other tab.

Well, I am, uh, very glad to be here today, and, um, I'd like to talk a little bit about the principles of conservatism...

When your first word is "well" and your fourth word is "uh," you're off to a shitty start.

...and, um, I only got two minutes, so I'd better make it quick.

I'll leave the grammar alone. At this point, Krohn pauses, presumably expecting this line to draw some polite laughs. When he hears none, he looks slightly flustered, but continues.

In the book, I deci--first of all, let me start where I decided to write this book.

Don't stop and shift gears in mid sentence, it sounds like you're lost. Especially if you do it and land right back where you started.

During the election, I noticed that there were so many throwing around the word "conservative" and "liberal" and "socialism," and um, I decided that there were too many people who threw the term "conservative" around who didn't realize what they were talking about.

Oh you "decided" that, did you? You, a thirteen-year-old kid, have thus ruled that the pundits on TV don't know what they're talking about when they say "conservative," and now you presume to stand up in front of those same people and tell them how wrong they are? Yeah, that should go over well. (And yet, he gets applause for it?)

He then gets on kind of a roll, drawing scattered applause a few more times, but this line stood out to me.

Conservatism is not about the party, cuz the party is merely the shell. It's the inside, it's the filling, that really means something, so...

Wait, what? It's the party that's the shell, but "it's" the inside? Which is it? What "it" are we talking about? I know from listening to him over and over again what he means, but it's not clear on the first run-through.

I believe that conservatism is based on four categories of principle: respect for the Constitution,

So then you believe when the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech that means "no law." Ever. Under any circumstances.

Or maybe it doesn't. What, exactly, is "respect for the Constitution?" What does it entail? And why do you think liberals don't have it?

respect for life

Unless that life happens to be wearing a turban. You can't say your ideology is based on "respect for life" as one of its founding principles unless you are, in fact, based on respect for life. So regardless of what you think somebody has done to you (or wants to do to you), how do you say you "respect life" if your response is to kill them?

Then he reemphasizes over and over again how key and important to his ideology these principles are. Even though anyone with half a brain can point out times that conservatives don't give a rat's ass about them.

Conservatism is not an ideology of feelings or romanticism as some people like to say.

Oh really? So all that flag-waving, "With us or against us" bullshit, what do you call that?

It is an ideology of protecting the people and the people's rights.

Unless it happens to be a right you don't think they should have. Hey kid, want some porn?

Okay, am I being a little harsh? Yes, especially considering that he's just a kid (which is what you were thinking as you read my comments thus far). But that's really my point; yes he's just a kid, but he wants to play in the big leagues. And if you want to play with the adults, you have to play by their rules. If you want to make speeches on an adult forum, you have to be just as good as the adults, and if you're not, that's just tough. Sorry kid, you lose. Go home.

That's the reason we don't have that many children doing adult things; because they don't measure up (just as Jonathan doesn't). He's good, I'll give him that. But he's not quite good enough. Nothing's stopping him from coming back in a few years, but he's not there yet. And pretending he's some kind of wunderkind when he really isn't all that special isn't doing him a service. I thought Republicans didn't like affirmative action!

Anti-Fundie Mistakes

2009-03-01T15:32:00.004-05:00

Well, hopefully, now that my life has settled back down, I can start posting with some regularity again. Today's topic will be "I've Slept With Over 100 Men and I Don't Know Know Which One is the Father!"

No, sorry, that's today's topic on Maury. (No, I'm not kidding.) Anyway, my topic will be mistakes made when arguing with fundies.

Yeah, I know, we gotta stick together in this. I'm not trying to deride anybody, or to be rude, but sometimes...we come off like idiots. I'm talking about the countless posts over at FSTDT wherein the commenters simply have no idea how to argue a point. They fight with the fundies, but don't ever address the actual problem with what the fundie is saying. So I'm going to present a few of the common errors I see, and how I'd correct them.

Yes, I know what you're thinking. "What right does the Watcher have to tell me how to argue? Is he some kind of sanctimonious prick?" The answers are: None, and yes.

But if you don't want to read my post, feel free to go somewhere else.

Fundie Claim: Hitler was an atheist and an evolutionist!
Usual Response: Wrong. Hitler was a Christian and outlawed evolution, and slept on a Bible-shaped bed, and whatever, followed by a million links to proof of all this.
Correct Answer: Irrelevant! It doesn't matter what Hitler believed. We're arguing about whether evolution is true. Hitler's beliefs play absolutely no role in this debate. If you want to prove evolution is false, Hitler's name should never come up, unless you've discovered that he was a scientist who performed research in evolutionary biology and produced some information material to the issue. Otherwise, Hitler has no place in this discussion and any mention of him is a waste of time.

Fundie Claim: Well, yeah but Hitler believed in Darwinism! He thought he was creating a master race!
Usual Response: No, he didn't.
Correct Response: That's false, but even if it were 100% true, and Hitler were the biggest proponent of evolution since Darwin, it wouldn't matter!! Don't conflate the argument of whether evolution is true with whether evolution is moral. No one is arguing that it's moral. In fact, it's probably quite IMMORAL. But that's tough shit, because it's true.

Fundie Claim: Atheists give less to charity than Christians.
Usual Response: No, and here's a bunch of statistics to prove it!
Correct Response: So what? Are we not arguing about whether God exists? Even if you could prove, definitively, that on the whole, Christians were more moral than atheists, it still wouldn't prove God exists. In fact, it wouldn't even be EVIDENCE that God exists. Christians being more moral proves only that Christians are more moral. Good for you, you're moral. But you're no closer to being right than you were five minutes ago.

Fundie Claim: Life has no purpose without God.
Usual Response: That's not true. I make my own purpose in life.
Correct Response: Even if you were correct, you would (again) be no closer to proving that God exists. Look what this argument seems to be saying: "God exists because if He didn't, life would be meaningless." Okay, so? How do you know life is meaningful? Maybe it is meaningless. Prove it has some meaning. Or rather, don't, because even if you did THAT, you'd be no closer to proving that God had a hand in it.

The bottom line is, God would exist if you could prove some characteristic of the universe that wouldn't exist without God. To do that, first you have to define God, then you have to figure out what it is that requires Him to be there. Then you have to prove that said factor wouldn't be if it weren't for God's existence. None of these examples above have anything to do with that; they're purely emotional appeals, and I hope anti-fundies stop getting caught up in them.

Holding On

2009-02-11T12:02:00.004-05:00

That title has a few meanings; one, I just want to remind everyone that I'm still here. Two, heh heh, I need to keep posting to stay on the Atheist Blogroll :)

I suspect I'll be able to come back and join all of you again soon, but for now, here's an anti-Creationist video by Aron Ra to keep you all entertained. If you like it, check out the whole series. He's a great speaker and he keeps a running commentary throughout. He his comments with clever images to keep it all going. Oh yeah, and he's pretty smart too.

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-25T10:05:00.001-05:00

Merry Christmas, dear readers! I hope Santa could find you Wii Fit this year, cuz I sure as heck couldn't!

Conservapedia: Seriously, What Is Wrong With You People?

2008-12-13T14:39:00.004-05:00

Does Andy Schlafly have a mental disorder or something? I don't really know what else I can ascribe it to; he's just insane. Sometimes, I think he and his harem over there are worse than Don Wild-Man and the AFA. I mean, sure, I disagree with just about everything ol' Donnie says--and frankly, some of it is mind-numbingly ignorant--but at least they limit their attacks to policies they disagree with.

On the other hand, Andy Schlafly uses Conservapedia as his pulpit to turn everything into some way to bash liberals. There isn't a single occurrence, good, bad, or neutral, that Andy can't find some way to turn into a complaint about liberals. Sometimes, he prints a news item about something bad happening to some person or institution, then accuses that institution of being a liberal (thus justifying his attacks on it).

On the cover page of Conservapedia, we find has this "news" item:

"Romania removes theory of evolution from school curriculum." The former communist country has become more free than the United States on this issue!

Ugh. There's more, but this is all the stupid I can digest at once. First off, "freedom" really isn't the issue here. It's kind of inconceivable that anyone would consider taking something away to be granting "freedom." Of course, if Romania used to teach evolution, and now teaches creationism, it's kind of a lateral move on the freedom scale, neither more or less "free" and simply different.

Then there's this business about Romania being a "former communist country," which is implicitly juxtaposed against its newfound "freedom" (where schoolchildren are taught one less scientific fact).

Now, Andy is a social studies teacher, which I find to be really unfortunate for his students. Because their teacher seems to have a serious issue understanding what "communism" is. To see what he probably thinks it is, you can check out the unashamedly-biased entry, where you can read lots of logically fallacious statements, but you won't learn much. Andy and his minions seem to be unaware that communism was actually created to give the working class MORE freedom, but they'd apparently rather attack the pop culture strawman of it than actually write scholarly news commentary.

You'll note that I'm ignoring, for the moment, the scientific merits of creation vs. evolution. Of course no one in their right mind actually thinks evolution is false, but I think enough ink has been spent on that topic that I'll leave it alone for now.

Then we have the Rod Blagojevich scandal (where the governor of Illinois was trying to sell Obama's senate seat on eBay). On the talk page, Blagojevich is being ripped to shreds, and frankly, that's just fine with me. The guy's a scumbag. I make fun of him to my friends in Illinois regularly (who coyly respond that my governor used to be Eliot Spitzer, so, touche).

But at Conservapedia, ripping someone to shreds has to include partisan bickering like this, from Sulli:

Typical liberal. Illinois has so much corruption in it's politics, it makes you wonder how even liberals could vote for Obama.

Huh? What did Obama do? What does he have to do with this?

Interestingly the liberal Chicago Tribune was criticizing the governor for his actions, and he tries to have their editors fired.

Huh, imagine that. Did it ever occur to you, then, that maybe this isn't a liberals vs. conservatives issue after all?

Later, on the mainpage,

Here's a typically liberal approach: demand judicial activism: "In an unprecedented move, the Illinois attorney general asked the state's highest court Friday to strip scandal-plagued Gov. Rod Blagojevich of his powers."

Okay, I don't see where the "judicial activism" comes from. This looks to me like the Illinios attorney general doing herjob by asking the Illinois Supreme Court to do its job, and impeach the governor. How is this "demanding judicial activism?"

And, if I can be so petty, I thought you people didn't like Blagojevich! Why are you attacking the people who want him out of office? I suppose I should be pleasantly surprised to see Andy and his gaggle of idiots actively avoiding a double standard, but something tells me that's not quite what's going on here. I suspect instead that Andy is having more fun bashing the Democratic AG, Lisa Madigan, than he is avoiding hypocrisy.

Then SamG shows up and questions why every word on Conservapedia is written toward the goal of bashing liberals.

Are there no standards on Conservapedia as regards article neutrality? I can find no evidence that controversial subjects are treated fairly and equitably. Virtually every user here appears to be on a personal mission to promote Christianity and suppress discussion of religious alternatives. Is it not possible that users and contributors who are political and ideological conservatives may not adhere to the same standards of religious belief, and ought not be marginalized?

Rod Weathers responds:

Unlike Wikipedia, articles are continually treated in a neutral fashion here. The only standard is truth. The only one trying to suppress discussion is you, by marginalizing conservative views, just like the liberal media.

Yep! It wouldn't be a conservapedia entry without someone showing up and snarking about "the liberal media!"

If Rod seriously thinks that Conservapedia is only promoting "truth," he needs to check out, well, just about any article they have. I haven't seen much "truth" or neutrality on Conservapedia, nor is SamG's suggestion that there ought to be some "marginalizing conservative views."

And this is why I have such a problem with these Conservapedia freaks. What is it with this persecution complex they suffer? They invent problems that don't exist, and accuse liberals of causing them!

So again, I ask: Conservapedia, what the hell is your problem?

Christians Insulted to Find Out They Have to Share This Country

2008-12-06T12:01:00.002-05:00

So, some of you are wondering where I've been. I guess it's no secret I don't write as often now as I used to. For that, I'm sorry, because I know there are a lot of you who enjoyed reading Fundie Watch. I'm going to keep plugging away, but as one commenter suggested below, yes, life keeps getting in the way. This blog doesn't pay a salary you know ;)

I don't have any plans for any type of frequency, but I want to try to get back to once a week. We'll see.

Anyway, today we turn to one of the fundies' favorites, Fox Noise's Bill O'Reilly. Mr. O'Reilly has his panties in a twist over the fact that sometimes, people other than Christians get noticed.

Just in time for the Christmas season, the Governor of Washington State, Christine Gregoire, has insulted Christians all over the world. Inside the state capitol building in Olympia, there is a traditional holiday display featuring a tree and the Nativity scene-perfectly appropriate since the Christmas federal and state holiday celebrates the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

If Christmas, as a federal and state holiday, celebrates the Birth of Jesus, we have a big Constitutional problem.

But this year, Governor Gregoire decided to add another item to the display. Standing alongside the baby Jesus is a giant placard designed by atheists that reads, "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

Well, that's pretty harsh. I'm not necessarily sure I agree with a sign that specifically insults religion, but I'm definitely in favor of the government allowing opposing viewpoints.

Of course, there's no Hanukkah symbols here. Nor were there any Ramadan displays back in September (at least, not that I heard of). No Samhain pumpkins! Maybe the government should just stop endorsing religions entirely?

You read that correctly. The governor of Washington State has permitted an attack on religion to be displayed in her office building as part of a Christmas presentation.

Well, Bill, I'm not sure how you figure this is part of a "Christmas presentation," when the very purpose of the atheist sign is to diss Christmas.

Now, even the producers of 'The Twilight Zone' would have rejected this script as being too far-fetched. Governor Gregoire's behavior is offensive, insulting to all people of faith, and totally incomprehensible.

I think this would actually be pretty tame for an episode of The Twilight Zone. What do you want, for William Shatner to be all "Oh no! They're...insulting...Christians! Must...stop...KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!"?

(Although, to be fair...the sign does kinda insult all people of faith, which isn't really necessary to get the point across.)

Unless you know what's going on in Washington State.

Seattle now rivals San Francisco for secular-progressive nuttiness. The city fathers are allowing public nakedness in city parks, nude bike riding, and in Fremont, a Seattle suburb, they actually put up a statue honoring Lenin, the father of communism.

Well, actually, Bill, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto. I'm not sure how you can figure Lenin is "the father of communism." Further, the statue was put up as both a source of controversy and to acknowledge its historical significance, so it's not as if Fremont just decided they wanted a statue of Lenin in their square and had someone build it. You can read the Wikipedia article on it here.

And Bill, what's your problem with nudity anyway?

Some on the Seattle school board actually supported denigrating Thanksgiving by teaching children about the atrocities against Native Americans by the Pilgrims.

How dare we teach kids the truth!? They shouldn't learn true facts! Facts could disrupt their happy, idealized little worlview!!

In addition, Washington State voters have passed assisted suicide, and the state gives out free birth control pills, including the "morning after" pill.

Yeah, and?

On the quality-of-life front, the streets of Seattle are full of homeless people, but they don't have to be out in the rain. The city will pay to house alcoholics and drug addicts if they want it. They can actually get free furnished apartments. Taxpayers, of course, pick up the tab.

Well, every city has homeless shelters. But what Bill is talking about is this plan, 1811 Eastlake, which is a staffed substance abuse house designed to help residents abate their drinking. The goal is to get them off the street and--I hate to ruin Bill's strawman here, but I'm going to--to cost less taxpayer money. The city figures it costs less to house them than it does to keep arresting them.

Outside of the Seattle area, Washington State is fairly conservative. But the big city population base rules, and far-left zealots are running wild. However, they may have overstepped on this Christmas deal.

I believe that most Americans, even those living in far-left enclaves, respect uplifting traditions like Christmas where peace and love are the theme of the great day.

Well, Bill, peace and love would be great, but you seem to turn every Christmas into a war zone. Pot, meet kettle.

Calling religion "enslaving" doesn't exactly fit into the peace and love scenario, does it? Can't we all just get along for a few weeks in December?

I agree. The sign is a bit extreme, but I'll ask again: Why is the government promoting Christmas at all?

The answer to that question is "no." Not in Washington State, where the governor believes a few nuts have a legal right to run down the Christmas tradition in the lobby of the capitol building. At this point, there is little left to say except this: Where are the wise men when you need them?

Ah, and there's the word. "Tradition." Anything that's "traditional" must be good, and how dare people turn it over? Why, after those leftist nuts get done with women's suffrage and desegregation, what else will they have to turn to?

OBAMA WINS!

2008-11-04T23:03:00.002-05:00

I heard it called by John Stewart at 11:00. Obama is the next president!

Congratualtions to Barack Obama!

VOTE!

2008-11-01T11:31:00.004-04:00

I don't need to tell you how important it is that you get out and vote on Tuesday. And that doesn't just go for "lock" states like New York and California; there's plenty more than the Presidential election to vote on. I'll be picking a president, state senator, and two district court judges, and we'll all be voting for a congressional representative.

In California, you have the horrid Proposition 8, which seeks to write an anti-gay marriage amendment into the state constitution. Whatever they call it "fighting judicial activism," "defending the family," "giving the choice to the people," the fact remains it's pure, flat-out, discrimination. Vote NO on Prop 8, if you value individual freedom at all.

Remember, if you're undecided between McCain and Obama, that the next President will be picking probably two Supreme Court justices, and that South Dakota is trying yet another abortion ban. Currently, that ban is unconstitutional, but if we turn over the Court to a bunch of fundies, abortion rights in most red states will be in serious jeopardy, and it chills me to the core to imagine abortions being any harder to get. What fools these fundies be!

So get out there and vote on Tuesday! Individual rights depend on it!

Single Issue Voters

2008-10-19T20:07:00.002-04:00

I saw a news segment today on PBS regarding Single-Issue Voters; people who vote based on one topic that's more important to them than all the others.

One guy interviewed was a Catholic and a staunch opponent of abortion. His position, of course, was that he wanted to elect a President who would appoint Supreme Court judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Now, the first thought I had upon hearing this was a shudder. Thoughts ran through my mind of Roe being overturned, Planned Parenthood going out of business, and girls ending up on dirty kitchen tables with coat hangers shoved in their vaginas.

You see, that's what overturning Roe will bring. I simply can't understand the fundie position here; Where did they get the idea that making abortion a crime would make it stop? Considering how hard a decision it is to have an abortion NOW, I can't imagine it would make much of a difference if it were illegal.

You want to stop abortions? Make 'em unnecessary. Birth control and comprehensive sex ed are essential, to teach women to take control of their own bodies and their own destinies. Pass out condoms and pills, and teach people how to use them. Don't believe me? How many women do you think needed abortions after having protected sex?

I suspect most one-issue voters don't think too carefully about the issue. They, like most conservatives, think in sound bytes, which, in my mind, always reminds me of the Hulk: "Abortion? Abortion bad! Bad things must make crime! Rurr!"

I think it would help for people to adopt a more nuanced view of things, which brings me to my second one-issue voter, a lady who was afraid of terrorism above all else (probably thanks, in large part, to the Bush Administration). She's voting for McCain, because "he has a better record on national security than Obama."

The PBS program postulated that she, like many people interested in national security, think poorly of Obama for stating that he'd meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the bargaining table. They never got into exactly why this is a problem, but they didn't need to. After all, "Terrorists hate us! Bad! Rarr! Iran terrorist regime! Must smash! GRRRRARRRGH!"

Never mind that A) no one seems to be interested in why they hate us (or who, exactly "they" consist of), and B) meeting force with force only works when your enemy is organized, defined, and beyond negotiation. With respect to "terrorists," there really is no centralism (despite the Right's insistence that every terrorist in the world is a member of an army under the command of Osama bin Laden).

Further, there's no definition of who, exactly, the bad guys are, or how many there are, or how we'll know when we've defeated them. We have no idea of what they want and whether it's rational, because no one has bothered to ask them. When Obama suggests doing that, he's villified a terrorist sympathizer, because it's much easier to hate the bad guys and want to kill them than to actually solve the problem. (For some reason, Conservapedia also thinks he's a Marxist, although they don't bother to explain why or how they came to that conclusion.)

When it comes time for the election, we'll probably see a few more single-issue voters coming out. If you happen to be one, my suggestion is, without hesitation, that you think good and hard on your one position, cuz it's all you have.

Fundies Create Chasm Over Sarah Palin

2008-10-07T20:29:00.002-04:00

Well, it had to happen sooner or later. Amid all the fawning, drooling, and crowing from the Right about how great Sarah Palin is, they seem to have forgotten something very important: Wimminfolk don't belong in the White House! Or so says Doug Phillips, in this hilarious ONN article by Allie Martin. Is anyone else as amused as I am when fundies argue among themselves over who's the most hateful and backward?

The president of Vision Forum says Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is sending the wrong message when it comes to the priority of mothers in the home.
Doug Phillips, president of Vision Forum says while the choice of Palin for the Republican vice-presidential nominee was a smart political move, it violates biblical teachings.

Yeah, Doug, you tell that bitch! Hey, Sarah: get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!

It is Phillips' opinion that evangelicals apparently are setting aside long-held values and beliefs about the priority of motherhood and the importance of home life.

I strongly agree. You evangelicals who plan to vote for McCain/Palin this November should know that you're making God angry. Very, very angry. Do you want an angry God?

"It's pretty clear what it says in Titus 2 that women are to care for their children, love their husband, and be keepers at home; that the Word of God be not blasphemed," Phillips explains. "And it's also clear in 1 Corinthians 11, when it says that the man is not made for the woman but the woman is made for the man, meaning that the wife is to be the helpmeet to the husband, who really sets the family vision and drives the family vision."

I love how he declares the Corinthians "so clear" before he explains what it means. (In his mind, anyway.)

Palin, according to Phillips, is not as conservative as many may believe. "Her actual record is a very anti-family record. Sarah Palin is on record as being pro-evolution, pro-contraceptive discussion at taxpayer expense at government schools," he adds.

Well, that'd be great if she was, and I probably wouldn't hate her so much, but that's all bald-faced lies. Palin on evolution. Palin on sex ed.

"She has advocated the single-most liberal policy regarding Title IX, which requires basically mandatory quotas now to be applied to the private sector.

I'm not really sure what this crack is about. I know she supports Title IX, because it most likely allowed her to play ball. I don't know what this "applying it to the private sector" business is.

She's one of the most pro-homosexual governors in America in terms of her actual policies."

She's actually been fairly lukewarm about gays and gay rights. Right now, the only comments on the subject that are getting any national attention are the ones where she says she doesn't support gay rights.

And, as much as fundies love hyperbole, they probably should learn to stop and think before they open their stupid mouths. Is Palin really "one of the most pro-homosexual governors?" Really? More than Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Phillips believes a Christian's first duty is to be motivated by God's Word, and not political expediency.

Oh, you're right, Doug. I guess she oughta just drop out of the race, then.

And, because I love fundies fighting so much, here's a sampling from the peanut gallery:

McCain knew that they had to appeal to the christian/conservative community more and with her knowledge of energy and ability to cross party lines, much less be a fairly straight talker and mother, Sarah was a good pick. Phillips could also consider the possibilites that she has kept her household and their respect while attending to other duties. Her husband is still the head of that house. Her children still look at her as their mom.

Oh, well, that's a relief! As long as her husband gets to wear the pants back home!

Yes, Sarah P has pursued a political career. However, I do see her as a mother, much more than the likes of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, or Geraldine Ferraro.

Never mind the fact that ALL of those women are mothers, or that we really don't know what goes on in their homes or Palin's. They're Democrats, which means we don't need to know any more than that.

"Doug is right on what God calls women to do. Just because we don't see this instruction widely accepted today does not invalidate truth. Society moved away from God's best -- God didn't relax His standards. That said, it is obvious that Sarah Palin decided long ago to sacrifice her children for her career. I'm not pleased with that, but I am voting for McPalin to keep Obama bin Laden out of office.

I don't know anyone named Obama bin Laden, but I like this one's style! You tell 'em, boy! No women in the white house! Don't vote for McCain--he'll bring Sarah Palin in, and displease God!

I agree with Douglas Phillips 100%. Phyllis Schlafly stated that she is against feminism yet when Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin "are you a feminist?" she said yes. Breaking down into a very basic definition, feminism has three components. It is a movement, meaning a group working to accomplish specific goals. Those goals are social and political change -implying that one must be engaged with the government and law, as well as social practices and beliefs. When we set aside our family as women, we need to check our hearts. What I see is that we have many children whose moms are political activists because they blame everything but themselves......where are the moms? Change comes from the hands that rock the cradle and the families being restored to order according to Scripture not governmental changes. She is a pawn.

You know nothing about feminism, and neither does Phyllis Schlafly. If she did, she'd realize that without feminism, she'd never have been given a national stage to stand up and spew her bile and hate.

I agree. Governor Palin has no business being in politics. She is a woman and God tells us that the husband is the head of the house, NOT the other way around. This doesn't send a good message to young Christian women. The bible tells us that it is man's natural place to rule the world with women in a subordinate position. We risk God's wrath when we go against the written word of our Lord.

Yeah, "young Christian women" should know their place! Sounds like we have another convert! Obama '08!

Okay, You Win! Obama's a Muslim

2008-09-28T20:54:00.002-04:00

They have convinced me! I have seen the light! His Lordship Andrew Schlafly has finally shown me irrefutable proof POSITIVE that Obama prays to Mecca! On today's Conservapedia home page appears this Earth-shattering, life-altering revelation:

In the presidential debate, Barack Obama repeatedly used the Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan" (rather than the American one): "Pokiston". ("Pakistan" is a Muslim word.)

In that short, two-sentence (excuse for a) news item, I learned a great many things. For instance, I learned that "Muslim" is now a language, and that there are proper ways to pronounce words in "Muslim." I mean, all this time I thought the official language of Pakistan was Urdu.

And, call me crazy, but I had this thought that like, you know, Obama was trying to pronounce it the way it's supposed to be pronounced (in "Muslim"). Like, as if he wanted to be culturally sensitive or some crazy shit.

Anybody want to guess how fast Andy would whip out his M-70 on the first Pakistani who pronounced his name with some Godforbidden "Muslim" accent?

Filth on TV Bothers Guy Who Watches TV

2008-09-27T14:21:00.003-04:00

L. Brent Bozell (Redbeard, as Keith Olbermann calls him) is the head honcho at the Parents' Television Council, a bunch of fundie meddlers who see it as their life goal to Bowdlerize TV for everybody. These idiots can't grasp the fact that not everyone wants to watch dumbed-down, G-rated programming all day long, and can't understand why TV is getting harsher and grittier every year. Here he is at Clownhall.com, writing, yet again, about how much he hates TV.

The temperature has cooled, the leaves are turning colors, and the new fall television season has begun. Enter the mudslide. The Shock and Awe manipulators have been unleashed to air evermore graphic sex and grotesque violence -- and, predictably, a combination of the two.

Hm, Brent. Sounds like some things on the ol' boob tube aren't your cup of tea. Maybe you should find the remote and change the channel?

The first "winner" in this race to the bottom was the FX cable channel, another sure bet.

Would that be the FX that lists all of its late-night programming as TV-MA, and can be filtered with a V-chip?

On Sept.17, viewers of the appropriately named new series "Sons of Anarchy" were "treated" to a graphic castration scene, complete with hacked-off genitals shown lying in a pool of blood.

Damn. I started to watch that show, too, but I turned it off cuz I was bored. Looks like I didn't hang around long enough (which is, I would think, the opposite problem from that of the poor fella who got his junk hacked off).

Completely tasteless programming is in, and FX bathes in it.

That would kind of depend on your definition of "taste," wouldn't it, there Redbeard?

The mastermind of all that Rupert Murdoch-backed villainy is an executive named John Landgraf, who pronounces his philosophical approach thusly: "One of our writers used to say, 'Bad men do what good men can only dream about.' There is a sense that what these characters are doing is allowing us to explore, in a safe context, our id and subconscious, what we might do if there were no restraints of society or conscience on us.''

That's why I watch. How about you?

Defenders of graphic violence in television or films insist that the power of these images do not corrupt. A person can view these programs without dreaming those dreams or acting upon them. But it's pathetic to argue that Hollywood is somehow performing a public service, taking the violence out of society, so as to "allow us to explore in a safe context" how much we'd like to castrate someone.

You want to stake money on that, Brent? Cuz right about now, I'm feeling like it would be nice if I could see a nice, bloody castration scene on TV.

No one should attempt to argue that "exploring our id" is a socially constructive crusade instead of a cynical attempt to shock your way to some extra ratings points, at least not without a laugh track attached.

I'm not going to pretend to be so naive as to think that TV studios are doing what they do to provide a "service" to America. But I do want to know why Brent has such a problem with consenting adults being allowed to watch what they please.

It might be amusing to watch a Hollywood executive try to argue before a minister that allowing someone to fantasize about unleashing his violent subconscious is a path to holiness. Most ministers would reply that someone who constantly dreams about committing violent acts, but never actually does it in real life is not a "good" person. They would see a flaming sinner with a socially helpful amount of cowardice.

Then, by your own doctrines, they would see a person who was exactly the same level of sinner as a two-week old baby, Mother Teresa, Jack the Ripper, Hitler, and L. Brent Bozell?

Landgraf's brazen attempts to play a moralist suggest a different maxim, one that fits a Hollywood executive: Bad men corrupt good men by bombarding them with entertainment that shocks them so aggressively and consistently that they're programmed to seek out an ever edgier, more graphic "entertainment" experience.

Yeah, that's the revelation of the century ya got, there Brent: old things are old. Do you eat the same food every day, or do you try to spice it up? When you're having fun doing your long division problems, do you like them all to stay easy or get harder as you go?

FX's "Sons of Anarchy" is another series about antiheroes, in this case a northern California motorcycle gang and criminal enterprise. Unsurprisingly, the show erupts from a man named Kurt Sutter, a longtime scriptwriter of the gruesome FX crooked-cop series "The Shield."

Aww, sounds like there's another show Brent probably shouldn't be watching, lest it offend his delicate sensibilities.

Sutter admitted -- boasted, really -- to the Miami Herald that he's trouble: "My sensibility is really twisted and dark ... Every story pitch that ever got me thrown out of a meeting, I put in 'The Shield.'"

Yeah. That show kicks ass. I started watching it right around the time it premiered, because I read an article at the AFA that told me I shouldn't.

Sutter was the source of two of the most notorious scenes in that show, the melting of a drug dealer's face into an electric grill burner, and a police captain being forced to commit an act of oral sex on a gang member at gunpoint, with all its revolting head-bobbing.

Oh, this is the part where Brent starts detailing the atrocities--as if trying to argue that freedom of speech doesn't apply after a certain point. That if you believe this stuff is protected by the First Amendment, you'll somehow change your mind if you know what the content is.

Sutter told the Herald's Glenn Garvin that FX executives patiently ask him to consider that not yet everyone shares his "vision," and so he has to move a little slower. "The notes weren't saying, 'don't do it,' but 'we want to honor your vision; now how are we going to photograph it?'" he recounted. "I lose perspective of people's capacity for watching violence. I just do. . . . I really need somebody to say, 'You can't do that. You don't want to turn people off.'"

I'm not really sure why Brent includes this part. Yeah, okay, I read it. So what? Let's move on.

In a nutshell, what we're hearing is FX executives who have a lot more sensitivity to the "vision" of a seriously twisted human being than they do to the prospect of a 10-year-old boy finding a terrifying castration scene as he's flipping channels in his home.

Oh no, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!? Good thing we have V-chips. And that Sons of Anarchy is on Wednesdays at 10 pm...

As usual, the TV critics are almost as sick as the alleged visionaries of Tinseltown. Associated Press critic Frazier Moore oozed about "Sons" that "FX is adding to its roster of outstanding dramas that showcase fascinating anti-heroes who buck the system, doing some good but leaving plenty of collateral damage. They are shrewd go-getters who, more than anything, keep creating problems for themselves."

So now TV critics are the problem, too, because they don't live in a G-rated fantasyland either? And that perhaps they appreciate some gritty programming as well? In other words, everybody is wrong except the people who refuse to watch the show.

Moore doesn't mention the castration scene, but he seems to suggest that it's just another example of "shrewd go-getters" bucking the system.

Without reading Moore's piece, I can't say if that's true or if you're just making up shit. Oh, excuse me; making up poopy.

Once again, the gruesome unfolding of a pervert's mind onto a national television screen underlines the need for the cable industry to provide a system of consumer choice, where parents have some ability to pick and pay for the cable networks they want, and not subsidize the twisted Wizards of Id at networks like FX.

There is. It's called "don't get cable." Yes, I know you fundies love this "cable choice," bullshit, and you love to trumpet why consumers should be able to pick and choose exactly what cable they get. I wish it worked that way with presidents.

Of course, I doubt they'd really enjoy "cable choice" as much as they think they would. For a good explanation of why this isn't really a feasible concept, click here. Don't worry; there are no dirty words.

Obscenity Prosecutions...Because There's No Other Crime We Should Be Spending our Resources On Instead

2008-09-10T21:00:00.002-04:00

First things first. The Evolved Rationalist wants me to draw attention to the plight of some guy named Gregg. He's a member of Anonymous, and battles Scientology. While I take no position on the war going on between Scientology and the Evolved Rationalist, I did agree to publicize the issue. Here's the link.

Next, we have the usual gang of slack-jawed idiots over at OneNewsNow, cheerfully stomping all over free speech. The latest ONN goofball, Charlie Butts (tee hee!) seems to think it's a good idea that swearing has become a criminal offense.

In two-and-a-half years, Pittsburgh city police have written in excess of 200 tickets for disorderly conduct for filthy language, obscene gestures, and other disrespectful acts.

Wow. I want to move to Pittsburgh! There are obviously no rapes, murders, carjackings, muggings, or drug dealing there, as the cops have time to devote to such nonsense. And nearly a hundred of these "incidents" a year no less!

The American Civil Liberties Union is crying infringement.

Infringement? Uh, no, I'm pretty sure the ACLU is comprised of actual lawyers--unlike Butthead here--who know the difference between a question of constitutionality and a trademark case.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel and Liberty University notes that towns, since the beginning of the country, have had ordinances against offensive speech and actions.

I'm pretty sure we had slavery and property ownership laws from the "beginning of the country" as well. Maybe Mat Staver would like to continue those as well?

"It has been part of our laws and system to protect common moral decency and protect people from assaults from other individuals who simply tear down common decency," Staver contends.

Actually, no, it hasn't. There's a big difference between an assault and someone cursing at you. As you fundies are so fond of pointing out, you don't have the right not to be offended. One of the hallmarks of a free society is that you can say whatever stupid, offensive crap you want and you can't be prosecuted for it.

"Frankly, the ACLU, in my opinion, is a four-letter word as well."

Once I got over my swell of pride that Mat Staver could, successfully, count to four, I realized that if he thought "ACLU" was foul language, he probably should be prosecuted now. I mean, don't look at me, I believe in free speech, but if Mat really wants to have his way...

But what about free speech rights for those who do use foul language? "Free speech does have its limits," replies the attorney.

Ah. And now Mat is going to tell us in clear, concise, legal language, exactly what those limits are and why.

"And certainly when someone is in public and they are using vexatious or libelous or slanderous or even offensive profanity, there are certainly limits that decency and common sense would say is off limits," Staver adds.

Oh, never mind; he's an idiot. What the hell do they teach you at Liberty University, anyway? What a waste; the public colleges I attended for both undergrad and grad school cost me a whole lot less than Mat paid, but he clearly didn't even get his money's worth. He's not even coherent!

In an Associated Press report, Witold Walczak, legal director of Pennsylvania's American Civil Liberties Foundation, asserts: "Nobody likes to get sworn at, but you can't make it a crime."

Clearly. And now, for a quick look at the peanut gallery.

"It's about time...freedom of speech too has certain limitations...like not yelling "fire" in a crowd room! If people are so ignorant they can't speak without profanity...then they are too ignorant for anyone else to have to listen to! Develop a civilized vocabulary or shut up!!"

I disagree, and so does the Supreme Court, who held in Cohen v. California that there are no substitutes for swear words.

"Freedom of speech does not mean speech without responsibility no matter how you choose to express it"

No, but what it DOES mean is that you can't be prosecuted for your speech.

"I am incensed that our tax money goes to support the ACLU. How insane is that? We pay our tax money to fund an organization that wants to destroy our government and the things we believe in. I don't get it. I predict that this insanity will continue until we the people get so fed up that there will be an insurrection!"

Really? Are you also incensed that our tax money goes to support faith-based initiatives? Because those are things I don't believe in. Or are your opinion and your beliefs the only ones that matter?

"If you can say anything you want, how come it is a crime to mention Jesus, Bible, etc in so many places, like schools, government buildings and gatherings, football games, courthouses etc etc?...

It's not. Next?

"Is the free speech also applicable if someone chooses to state that he or she considers there is a possibility of origins other than Darwinism or evolution? Why are those who do so castigated or worse? Where is the aclu then?"

I don't know. Why don't you show me someplace where someone was prosecuted criminally for saying those things, and I'll be right there next to you?

"Thanks for all your honorable work and service to many individuals, Mr Staver. Respect starts with the individual, no respect for oneself, no respect for others.The right of Freedom of Speech is being unfairly used by many in order for them to continue to be disrespectful in many areas of their lives, their sins forced on others."

Yeah, this anonymous commenter says you're misusing your freedom of speech, so we should just take it away!

Fundies Create Giant Protest Sign

2008-08-28T20:31:00.002-04:00

Fundies have decided that the DNC needs a giant protest sign. Apparently, seeing the words "DNC" and "Destroys uNborn Children" will make us filthy libruls do an about face and rethink our evil, babykilling ways.

It's from The Raw Story, with a link to this cheery FOX Noise video.

Newsflash: Drug Smuggling Not As Bad a Crime as Shooting People

2008-08-10T21:09:00.002-04:00

A few years ago, a Mexican was caught with a truckload of pot as he tried to cross the border into Texas. Luckily, however, we have two proud, heroic border patrol agents who will protect Americans from the heinous atrocity that is a case of the munchies. And they did it by, erm, shooting him.

If you're a fundie, all that above makes perfect sense. Because fundies think shooting someone in the ass is an appropriate level of force when chasing a pot dealer. Or so says Fred Lucas at CNSNews.com.

The Mexican drug smuggler who testified against the two Border Patrol agents who shot him near the Mexican border was sentenced Wednesday to nine and a half years in federal prison. That’s a shorter sentence than either of the agents received.

You think maybe it's because he didn't, I dunno, SHOOT ANYBODY?

Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila received two consecutive 57-month sentences for smuggling almost 800 pounds of marijuana into the U.S. in September and October of 2005. During that time, he had immunity from prosecution for an earlier smuggling episode -- the one where he was shot by Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

That all sounds proportional to me. You haul drugs across the border, you better be prepared to deal with the consequences. Which, according to Ramos and Compean, is getting shot.

In February 2005, Compean shot 14 times at the fleeing illegal alien drug smuggler, but he missed. Ramos shot once and hit Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks before the wounded smuggler made it back across the Mexican border.

14 times and they all missed, huh? What a crack shot our Border Patrol agents are. I feel much safer now.

Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 and 12 years, respectively, for discharging a weapon in the commission of a crime of violence. A federal appeals court upheld the border agents’ conviction last week. Both agents said they thought the smuggler had a gun, but if he did, it was never found.

Yeah, that would have been nice, because then shooting him might have been justified. Except, erm, that he was running away at the time, so whether he had a gun or not is really immaterial.

“It is an insult that the drug dealer would do less time than the agents,” Monica Ramos, wife of Ignacio Ramos, told CNSNews.com.

It is? Why? He wasn't trying to murder anybody. Your husband was.

The U.S. government issued Aldrete-Davila with border crossing cards, allowing him to enter and exit the country without supervision while he was waiting to testify against the border agents. It was during this time that he committed the drug offense that has now landed him in prison.

Well, it sounds like Aldrete-Davila is kind of a dumbass himself. He gets a get-out-of-jail free card and he blows it by getting arrested again.

Look, I freely admit the guy's a moron. I'm just not convinced that being a moron is enough to warrant being shot.

The Drug Enforcement Administration issued a report on Aldrete-Davila’s illegal activity, but [US Attorney Johnny] Sutton’s office did not prosecute him until two years after it happened. Sutton said his prosecutors were establishing evidence of a crime.

Of course, had the border patrol agents not committed a felony while trying to apprehend him, prosecution probably could have commenced faster. So, nice job Ramos and Compean.

Prosecutors in the border agents’ case blocked efforts by defense attorneys for Ramos and Compean to include evidence of Aldrete-Davila’s other offenses in the agents’ trial.

Aw, those mean nasty prosecutors won't let us violate the Federal Rules of Evidence! Waahhh!! Too bad CNSNews doesn't know jack shit about law, because if they did, they would know that judges make evidentiary rulings, not prosecutors. They can raise objections, but they can't "block" anything.

They would also know that Aldrete-Davila's other, past crimes are wholly irrelevant in determining what went on at the arrest site. Would've been a nice touch to make the jury hate him though, wouldn't it?

The border agents’ conviction caused a national firestorm. Critics said the good guys were punished for doing their job, while the bad guy was granted immunity for smuggling drugs.

Uh, no, he was granted immunity against being prosecuted for his drug crimes, so that he would testify about the ATTEMPTED MURDER crime that Ramos and Compean committed. Please try to keep up.

And what's this about "doing their jobs?" Doing your job entails shooting people who are running away? Is that what they teach at the police academy now?

Members of Congress from both parties have called on President Bush to either pardon or commute the sentences of the two agents.

Ah, I get it. So you should be able to commit whatever crime you want as long as you're wearing a badge while doing it.

“My heart goes out to Mrs. Davila and her kids,” Monica Ramos said. “There are no winners here. My three kids, Joe’s three kids and now Davila’s two kids lost a father because of his (Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila’s) actions.”

Yeah, he put the gun in Ramos's hand and said "SHOOT ME! SHOOT ME!" Again, I'm not arguing that Adrete-Davila is a wonderful, angelic human being whose character is above reproach. I won't even argue that his actions didn't serve as the catalyst for this mess.

My one and only complaint is that none of this excuses two trigger-happy loons trying to shoot him as he's running away.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) said the sentencing underscores what a disgrace the border agents’ prosecution was.

“You can’t blame a criminal for committing more crimes after being given a free pass...

You can't blame the criminal? Hell yeah I can. He's a Class-A dumbass for squandering the deal of the century!

...but you can blame Sutton’s ‘win at all costs’ arrogance and despicable judgment for totally destroying the lives of two heroic border agents for doing their jobs,” Rohrabacher said.

What "despicable judgment?" I know I'd rather have one pot dealer walking around free than two murderers. Even if they did think they were just "doing their jobs" in the process.

“There is no question the fallout from Sutton’s prosecutorial overreach in the Ramos and Compean case has already caused immeasurable harm to the efforts and morale of the men and women of not only the Border Patrol, but all law enforcement.”

Yeah, damn that Sutton for setting such an awful precedent. Doesn't he realize that in our War on Drugs, we should be allowed to do whatever the hell we want? Even if it includes killing people?

Back in the Saddle

2008-08-05T22:06:00.003-04:00

My God, is it really August 5? Don't worry, I haven't forgotten you, my loyal readers! My life has simply been in upheaval for a while, and will continue to be for the next couple of weeks.

However, things seem to have settled down lately, so I think I'll try and get another couple of blogs in this week. Fingers crossed, folks.

AFA Wants to Ban More Stuff They Don't Like

2008-07-23T23:38:00.006-04:00

Brace yourselves, this could be traumatic. As much as this may come as a shock to some of you, I feel compelled to share the news. Apparently, some things in the Bible may not be true. I know this because Don Wildmon told me so.

New PBS program says Bible isn't true, stories made up

Your tax dollars helped fund “The Bible’s Buried Secrets”

Well, I'm not sure that's exactly what the program says, but I should probably just shut up and believe ol' Donnie, because he's a Christian, and Christians never lie.

Among highlights of "The Bible's Buried Secrets":

• The Old Testament was written in the sixth century BC and hundreds of authors contributed.
• Abraham, Sarah and their offspring didn't exist.
• There is no archaeological evidence of the Exodus.
• Monotheism was a process that took hundreds of years.
• The Israelites were actually Canaanites.
• The Israelites believed that God had a wife.

Well, that all sounds absolutely...well, frankly it sounds kind of boring. I don't think I'll be watching.

So what are you gonna do, Donnie? Make your own documentary to refute PBS's conclusions? No, of course not--this is the AFA we're talking about!

I have often said that PBS should not receive tax dollars. "The Bible's Buried Secrets" is simply one more reason Congress should stop supporting PBS with our tax dollars. Congress gives PBS hundreds of millions of tax dollars to help support the network.

I love it when they say "tax dollars." It's like fundie code for "we don't like it," but they use the phrase "tax dollars" to sound like they're making a sane, grounded, well-thought-out political statement. What they really mean is "Shut 'er down!"

I mean, they can't SAY it, of course, because that would make them sound like a bunch of whiny little children, so they head for the "tax dollars" to at least give themselves the appearance of operating in the real world. Apparently, since Donnie used the magic words three times in three sentences, he wants you to know just how sane, grounded, and political he feels about this situation.

Here's the petition they want me to send to Congress:
Petition Text

TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

In light of PBS's decision to air "The Bible's Buried Secrets," I ask that you vote to stop funding PBS with tax dollars. PBS should raise its own money. I should not be forced to help pay for its programs.
Um, right. "Hey, Congress! I don't like what PBS is saying! Can you please shut them down for me? Thanks, that'd be great."

I guess free speech only counts when they're saying stuff you agree with.

More English-Only

2008-07-16T19:14:00.003-04:00

I started this rant over at FSTDT on a thread where some English-only racist got beating his chest again. It got too long, so I thought I'd throw it here. So, in keeping with my recent (and completely unintentional) theme of not talking about Fundies on Fundie Watch, I thought I'd throw out my ideas of why I hate English-only.

First of all, making English the official language would really accomplish nothing. Would it force store owners to change their signs over? No, not unless you made English not only official, but MANDATED.

How racist would that be? You want to open up a Chinese restaurant, you best name it somethin' nice and red-blooded American. Like Toby Keith's House of Wok or something. You want to print up Chinese menus in your Chinese restaurant, that YOU own? Too friggin' bad, it's illegal!

Oh, okay, so maybe English-official would just make all our government services English-only. If you want to work with the government, you best speak English. So that means no driver's license, which means you can't work, which means you're on welfare...oops! You can't fill out the welfare paperwork because it's in English. I guess you just have to die. That'll teach YOU to be foreign.

Except...not only foreigners are non-English speaking. Plenty of legal immigrants don't speak English (or speak it well). Hell, some NATURAL BORN AMERICANS don't speak English! Maybe they should just go ahead and die too; what do you think this is, a country of diversity?

But wait, there's more! If we let Spanish-speakers fill out their ID applications in Spanish, they could, you know, get jobs, earn money, be productive members of society. Maybe they could even enroll in an English course...

And what about those stubborn numbnuts who just REFUSE to learn English? What does a good, pie-eating, all-American racist do about THEM? Uh, nuthin. What's it to you? What do you give a rat's ass if someone is going about their business, not interacting with you, and not interfering with your life in any way?

Well, maybe they'll open a store...one that doesn't cater to English-speakers! Uh, okay. So don't go there. Unless you'd like to FORCE them to, as I mentioned above? Some people seem to want to. As if they didn't have a right to run their store the way they wanted to. And, if it can't make enough money catering to non-English speakers, it'll go out of business. All of which is, frankly, not your problem.

Yep, good ol' American capitalism has only one natural enemy: Good ol' American racism.

Paternalism on the George Lopez Show

2008-07-11T21:12:00.002-04:00

Some people might question the sanity of dragging out a TV show that ended two years ago and dragging it through the mud to make a feminist point. Well, you'd probably be right. If you happen to think that, there are many other fine blogs, recently updated and available on the right side of the page, for your reading pleasure.

In the meantime, I'm going to rant about a dead issue. See, I've been watching reruns of The George Lopez Show on Nick at Nite. Not a bad show, and in its time, it was the only show on TV with a primarily-Hispanic cast. And considering the number of Hispanics there are in this country, that's practically a crime.

But you take the good with the bad, and in this case, "the bad" included several plot themes that probably were better off left in the 1950's where they belong.

As you can probably guess, the father-daughter sitcom dynamic is out in full force. George's daughter, Carmen, announced when she was 14 that she wanted to start dating, much to her father's chagrin. He first forbid her from EVER dating until his wife Angie convinced him to soften up a little. George then rattled off a long list of demands that a hypothetical guy had to meet before he'd allow Carmen to date him, including straight A's, doesn't talk back to his parents, no tattoos, and doesn't drink or smoke.

Fine, semi-reasonable demands I suppose--especially in light of starting at "you'll never date!" But then, a few seasons later, when his son Max turned 14, it was a whole different story. Daddy was all thumbs-up, apparently believing that his son was plenty mature to tread into the dating world, even if his daughter wasn't at the same age. Unfortunately, modern science disagrees, but why worry about the facts when you have a power structure to maintain?

In fact, not only does George encourage young Max to date, he teaches him how to lie to his girlfriend to get what he wants! Double standard much?

And, lest we not forget the efficiency expert episode. George meets a guy at work who went to college, and has everything George wishes he could have. Cars, money, a nice suit, a big house, and "a smokin' hot wife." In fact, though her face is never seen, several characters pass a picture of her around and universally agree on how attractive she is.

The thing is...I never realized that your wife's looks was a measure of your success. I mean, silly me, I thought marriage was about meeting someone you were mutually compatible and in love with, and settling into a life together. I didn't know it was about bagging the best of the lot, as if women were like Olympic medals, and their worth based entirely on how much they shine.

You go to college? You bag a nice-looking one. You go to college and get a good paying job? You bag a hottie. You get a degree, a high-paying job, and buy a Ferrari? You can bring home a supermodel. That about the size of it?

Look, folks, I really enjoyed the show, and I don't want it to sound like I'm completely down on it. But let's face it here; we're in the twenty-first century now. I'd say it's about time we started acting like it.

Pass the Thin Mints, Please

2008-07-08T09:00:00.001-04:00

Here's reader CrackerLilo, with her guest commentary. Remember, guest bloggers welcome throughout this month!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Watcher wanted guest commentary, and I decided to send some. Marcia Segelstein of OneNewsNow.com, the American Family Association's excuse for a news service, is pretty reliably hysterical. She outdid herself this time, in The Girl Scouts' New Radicalism. Much as I love the Watcher, I figure some subjects simply need a woman's touch. I was a Girl Scout, and I think the Girl Scouts are a fine organization. Marcia might contend that this made me the bisexual Pagan same-sex-married woman I am today. To this, I reply, thank the Gods. It sure beats being neophobic and uptight.

Actually, I was born in 1974, so I missed a lot of the "radicalism." Plus I dropped out after fifth grade. Apparently if I'd gone on to Cadettes (middle school girls) and Seniors (high school), I'd have had some big-time fun.

Stick around until the end, or just scroll there, 'cause there's a surprise twist!

----------------------------------------------

The Girl Scouts of the USA have been on a steady, well-documented leftward slide for many years. (More on that later.)

I didn't know a slide could go leftward. But of course, to Segelstein, "left" and "down" are synonyms.

But this summer, the organization is about to take a giant leap even further in that direction.

The GSUSA is introducing a new "Girl Scout Leadership Experience," essentially a new curriculum, titled "Journeys." The first series of books, one for every level of scouting, will be released this summer called "It's Your World - Change It." As you may have guessed from the title, it's all about girls "taking action."

In the words of the Girl Scouts' literature, the mission is for girls to "lead with courage, confidence, and character to make the world a better place." Sounds innocuous enough. But the GSUSA leadership has some specific ideas about what exactly "making the world a better place" means.

Unlike the people who lead Vacation Bible Schools, Sunday Schools, Awana, The Royal Rangers, etc., right? Why, when I attended a Southern Baptist VBS and an Assemblies of God Sunday School as a little girl--at the same time I was in Girl Scouts, no less--I remember getting all kinds of encouragement to ask questions and think for myself!

For example, seventh- and eighth-grade cadettes will participate in an eight-session "Journey" called "aMaze," in which "girls create 'peace kits' and learn how to create more peace in the world, one relationship at a time." It sounds sweet, but is there a lesson in there about peace often coming with a price?

What the hell? Would it somehow be healthier for them to be taught to love war and fighting? Do you have a problem with girls learning how to interact more peacefully with parents, siblings, and friends? (I know my mom would have liked me and my kid brother to "learn how to create more peace in the world, one relationship at a time".) These girls will probably have roommates and spouses soon enough. I guess it makes sense that people who believe in withholding helpful information for the future from teenagers through abstinence "education" would also like to withhold lessons in conflict resolution from them.

The "Journey" for the oldest Girl Scouts is called "Your Voice, Your World: The Power of Advocacy." In it, "girls explore the rich and global history of women's advocacy efforts and engages girls to become advocates in their communities." Advocates for what, you might well wonder.

Again, as opposed to conservative Christian youth groups, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, rallies such as Acquire the Fire, etc.

Here's one example. In August, the GSUSA is inviting girls to "explore climate change as it relates to environment, community and the global community." They will meet with experts "to explore the issue of global climate change" and "come up with action plans to...make a difference in [their] own community."

I'm sorry...have you not been watching the Weather Channel? Have you been too busy picking on the Girl Scouts to hear about the possibility of an ice-free North Pole this summer? Go ahead and mobilize kids to protest at their gay neighbors' house if you want, but some of us would like to solve real problems.

Many adults associated with the Girl Scouts have expressed serious concerns about this new curriculum.

Really? Because I've searched, and the only ones expressing concern that I'm seeing are a handful of Christianists like you who "express concern" when a kid has a burrito fart.

Promoting social activism, emphasizing the power of self, and jumping on the bandwagon of politically correct causes like global warming are further evidence to them of the organization's ever-growing radicalism.

Then why don't you name some names and provide some links?

The blueprint for this new curriculum came from the Girl Scouts Arizona Cactus-Pine Council, which decided they needed to be "re-founded."

Oooh, oooh, oooh, I see a problem already. Right on the front page, sassy-looking girls are posed underneath the caption "We're not just cookies and camping anymore." How dare they?

But if you can stand to look at 24 pages of PDF brochure, Marcia's real problem is most likely here. Girl Scouts are encouraged to explore their emotions and listen to older womens' wisdom. There is a lovely (and non-religious) poem at the end by Starhawk, the Wiccan priestess. And worst of all, girls are quoted as learning how to solve their own problems without praying or anything!

To oversee the process, they naturally hired facilitators -- in this case, from the Ashland Institute, a consulting group with a distinctly New Age bent.

I can, to be fair, see where Marcia sees that "distinctly New Age bent." (Unlike Marcia, I will provide a link.) But they have no overt religious agenda of any kind. They seem more interested at helping women and organizations at turning points in a peaceful wooded area. It's not far different from the retreats into Bumfuk Egypt, Florida that my ex-boss (a man, incidentally) was fond of foisting on us. Wonder what Marcia would think of those.

The Board of Directors and the Arizona Cactus-Pine Council went into a special retreat. After engaging in a "collective reflective process called Open Space,"

Oh, man, my ex-boss would totally eat that shit up with a spoon. Something tells me, however, that Marcia wouldn't give an eyeroll and a groan. It would be more like a loud, "GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN!"

they decided that some radical changes were in order. According to their own online material, "We are living in a crisis of the spirit in a war-torn world."

Does Marcia propose to argue that our world is not, in fact, war-torn? I got some Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Israelis, Palestinians, Sudanese, and Zimbabweans over here who might beg to differ.

The literature speaks of female empowerment. It asks, "Could the Girl Scouts help birth the quality of women's leadership that the world so desperately needs today?"

Probably not, but hey, even little girls need something to aim for.

It continues: "She [Tamara Woodbury, executive director of the Cactus-Pine Council] knew the time had come for a feminine approach to leadership in the world. What better place than the Girl Scouts to help land the possibility -- but how to do it in a feminine way?" I really have no clue how Ms. Woodbury would define a "feminine approach to leadership in the world," and can't think why world leadership needs to be approached from a feminine or masculine perspective. Unless, of course, one has a radical feminist point of view.

Hmm. I wonder if Marcia thinks that Phyllis Schafly and Concerned Women for America founder Beverly LaHaye have "a radical feminist point of view." After all, they argue that women lead differently and must act differently from men. So do most conservative Christian materials on gender. Frankly, I personally dislike any biological essentialist viewpoint, including Tamara's. However, to paraphrase a book that Marcia claims familiarity with, she ought to take the beam out of her own eye before she goes looking for splinters in Girl Scout leaders'.

So the Arizona Cactus-Pine Council forged ahead to find a place where "preteens and teens learn to hear and trust their own inner guidance." As a Christian, I look to God for guidance, and pray that my children do, too.

Good for you. Girl Scouts isn't an exclusively Christian group. You can take your children to church to learn about God.

"Inner guidance" sounds way too much like "do your own thing," or "follow your heart," rather than "do the right thing."

Aw, does Marcia think that nobody would do what she tells them if given a chance to pick something else?

In fact, the online literature suggests just that: "Juliette Low [founder of the Girl Scouts] might say to us today, 'Follow my spirit, not my footsteps. Lead from the heart into the unknown.'" An interesting place to want to take teenagers.

Lots of things are "unknown" to young people. They're still learning. The world keeps changing, too, despite Marcia and the AFA's best efforts.

Here's one of the Girl Scouts' new values: "Girls learn to quiet themselves, taking 'full stop moments' where they can connect with a silence that is perfect and pure, an internal blank canvas....The girls 'find their own compass' through a model that starts looking within to find their purpose, values and vision and ends with clear strategies, action and planning."

Well, hell, if that's not the most horrible thing I ever heard in my life. Teenagers don't need to be taught to calm down and think about things a moment, do they? And they sure don't need any strategizing or planning. Who needs all that when you have the Bible and the American Family Association to tell you how to do things?

In case you weren't already clear on this, back in 1995, the Girl Scouts made it optional to include the word "God" in their official "promise."

How awful that an organization that meets in public schools and doesn't claim to be Christians-only actually makes an effort to include everybody.

By the way, in 1983, a little girl in my troop cried when she was asked to use the word "God." Her parents were both atheists. My mother told her she could "just skip that word if you want." Then she told me I'd better say it. Amazing--Christians can both raise their own children with their own values *and* respect other parents' attempts to do the same!

So it shouldn't be a great surprise that now girls are supposed to look within, discover a blank canvas, and find their own values. This isn't God-optional. This is anti-God.

Why am I thinking that "God" always agrees with Marcia Segelstein?

Here's "The Girl Scout Promise," according to the GSUSA website:

"On my honor, I will try:
To serve God* and my country,
To help people at all times,
And to live by the Girl Scout Law."

The asterisk is explained at the bottom of the page: "The word 'God' can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on one's spiritual beliefs. When reciting the Girl Scout Promise, it is okay to replace the word 'God' with whatever word your spiritual beliefs dictate."

And in a church group, you've absolutely *gotta* say "God." So? Again, Girl Scouts is NOT A CHRISTIAN GROUP!!! It always gets to me, how a God who is supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present must be mentioned every hour on the hour by all of his followers and even some people who aren't, or *poof!* He goes away!

That's right. Go right ahead and define "God" however you like.

Or however your own parents have taught you. It is, in fact, legal for parents to raise their children in ways that Marcia doesn't approve of. It is also legal for children and teens to do their own spiritual exploration.

Telling girls to look inside themselves for direction, especially teenage girls, is like advising them to wear a blindfold while driving.

And telling little girls that they absolutely have to profess service to a deity they don't believe in or else they can't hang out with their friends and go fishing is like...being incredibly mean and bigoted for no good reason.

So -- to be clear -- along with political correctness, the Girl Scouts have now fully embraced moral relativism.

Oh, wow, so that old dog still hunts in Fundieland. But there are plenty of groups who don't embrace moral relativism. Marcia will promote one later. Some parents may actually find "political correctness" (which in my experience is generally attempts to be courteous) and "moral relativism" beneficial. If they don't, the Girl Scouts will retool again.

But getting back to being anti-God, there is the matter of the "Covenant of the Goddess."

Again, it's up to me to provide a link.

It's a Wiccan website

...and organization...

which, among other things, describes their awards program. There's the "Over the Moon Award" for ages 8-11 and the "Hart and Crescent Award" for ages 12-18.

Marcia puts pictures of the awards on the site to illustrate their evilness; I don't see it, but that's probably because I am Pagan. You can see them here.

The awards are offered "to any young person...who is a member of any nature-oriented religion (Wicca, Druid, Asatru, Native American, etc.)." What does this have to with the Girl Scouts? The Girl Scouts recognize these awards, which may be worn on the Girl Scout uniform.

Oooh, *scary*. Little Pagans (or more precisely, children of Pagan parents) in the Girl Scouts! There are quite a few other options, from Baptist to Hindu to Jewish to Pentecostal, as this chart from the National Interfaith Committee for Girl Scouting shows. Some of them are even from conservative Christian denominations. But of course, just the fact that there is such a thing as a National Interfaith Committee for Girl Scouting probably wrinkles Marcia's undies. Not to mention the fact that Pagans are permitted to raise their children in their faith and allow them to join Girl Scouts just like regular people!

Criticism of the Girl Scouts is not new. A few years ago,

Almost eight, to be precise.

Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote a piece for National Review Online called "The Cookie Crumbles."

I got your link for you.

Here are some highlights:

"Exercises [from a Senior Scout manual] include working through how the Girl Scout Promise and Law relate to such situations as 'Suppporting a decision to pull a life-support system from a dying relative' and 'Ending a pregnancy.'

Of course, teenagers do have dying older relatives and parents who need their support; they also sometimes get caught up the spout (purity rings or not) or see friends in that situation.

Some activities 'you can do as a Girl Scout to address contemporary issues' include 'organiz[ing] an event to make people aware of gender bias' or 'help[ing] organize an Earth Day celebration."

They are suggestions, not requirements. Besides, maybe not every young woman wants to pester her local supermarket managers about their decisions to carry that awful, pornographic Glamour magazine.

She cites the 1997 book On My Honor: Lesbians Reflect on Their Scouting Experience as being "filled with coming-of-age stories sparked by gay encounters in the Girl Scouts."

Damn, I should've stuck with Girl Scouts! Or maybe not. Maybe I'd have ended up with some other girl and not my wife. That would've sucked.

Seriously, I'll bet Nancy Manahan thought she was compiling a fun and fluffy book for a lesbian audience back in the Nineties, not a bit of "evidence" for the fundies. Interesting, isn't it, how they don't believe what we LGBT folks have to say about ourselves unless it sounds, at least to their ears, really baaaad? Then we become experts!

The book includes an essay titled "All I Really Need to Know About Being a Lesbian I Learned at Girl Scout Camp." According to Lopez, "staffers writing in the book claim that roughly one in three of the Girls Scouts' paid professional staff is lesbian."

That was over ten years ago, and it is hyperbole. If it were true, what would be wrong with that, unless you thought lesbianism is so awful it should never, ever even be seen in public...oh, *wait*.

Then there is the "cozy relationship," as columnist John Leo put it, between Planned Parenthood and a Girl Scout council in Waco, Texas. He wrote, "The council gave a 'woman of distinction' award to the local chief of Planned Parenthood, who runs an abortion clinic in Waco....The [same] council also endorsed and helped to staff Planned Parenthood's 'Nobody's Fool,' an annual half-day sex-education program...offering sympathetic treatment of abortion, masturbation, and homosexuality." Only after protests did the council withdraw their endorsement of the sex-ed program.

I wonder how many protestors actually had daughters in the Scouts, or if they were just AFA members who responded to a hysterical screed? Look at how they respond to other attempts to guide girls around their own genitalia.

By the way, a quick search shows that GSUSA dissolved their ties with Planned Parenthood.

It turns out that other Girl Scout councils in Nevada and Connecticut also had relationships with Planned Parenthood. And, according to Concerned Women for America, one Girl Scout leadership manual "gives visits to health clinics like Planned Parenthood as an acceptable option for Brownie troops. Brownies are for girls six to eight years old."

As I said...

I bet that even if such an "option" had ever existed, most Girl Scout leaders would be taking their Brownies to a pediatrician's office or a zoo or something. Or if they're like my mom, NASA!

In 1995, when "God" became optional in the Girl Scouts' promise, a group of parents in Ohio had had enough. Disillusioned with the increasingly secular leanings of the Girl Scouts, they started their own organization with about 100 members. American Heritage Girls today has chapters in 34 states, with over 6,500 members.

So now girls can get just as heaping a helping of bigotry as their brothers in the Boy Scouts!

Here is the American Heritage Girls' oath:

I promise to love God,
Cherish my family,
Honor my country,
and Serve in my community.

You'll note that there's no asterisk next to "God."

Which will fully prepare these girls for the real world, when they will be encountering people of all and no faiths and finding out the hard way that what the pastor said about them is incorrect, to say the very least.

Check out their website to see if there's a chapter near you. And if there isn't, they'll help you start one of your own.

And then once you do that, quit whining about how the rest of us want to raise our kids!

You thought I was done? Hell, no. We need to check out the peanut gallery, a/k/a the oh so revealing commenters. Just a few choice ones.

"I was a Girl Scout many years ago and I am stunned and saddened by this news. I don't have daughters, so I haven't been involved in the GS since I was young, but obviously they have not chosen to stand firm like the Boy Scouts have. Too bad so many people and groups will find out the hard way what happens when you push God aside."

Why does that read to me like, "My daddy's gonna whip your ass, just you wait!"? With a hand on her hip and a finger wagging in your face.

"Taking God out of the GS is sickening. Having lebian leaders is too...

Do you mean "lesbian"?

...And if you read your bible women aren't supposed to be in authority over men. This doesn't downgrade a woman but is uplifting because it is a woman's place (according to God's word) is to compliment her husband and be subjective to him. This is something Christians have to work at because it is woman's natural tendancy to rule over man and man's natural tendancy to let women rule. This all started in the Garden of Eden and has really grown in these days."

Now where would anyone have gotten the idea that men and women think different? Must be the radical feminists!

"The girl scouts was founded by a christian, and thats why she put "GOD" in there. What else is the people gonna let the devil take out? And what are they gonna add next?....To sever Satan?....Christian people need to start standing up and voice thier opinion on these things. If you dont want to say "GOD" in the motto, then dont join the Girl Scouts. And for any troup leader that mentions about visiting a abortion clenic or homosexuality should be banned from the Girl Scouts!!!! And also...I dont wouldnt want my little girl being lead by a lesbian leader either!!! "ONLY" the parents are supposed to teach thier children the things they need to know about life! Everyone else needs to keep thier nose out of the families and let t hem teach thier own children because I know whats good for my girls...and that is "GOD"!!!"

Oh, *wow*. Someone hand that fundie a paper bag, please. Now *breathe*, honey, 'cause nobody wants to pick a blue fundie up off the floor.

As for the contention that "everyone else needs to keep their nose out of the families and let them teach thier own children" does that mean you won't try to override other families' religious teachings in the public schools or evangelize their children or split up their same-sex parents? 'Cause that would just tickle me to death. It's pretty much all I'm aiming for, really.

"Excellent. A true expose of the pagan drivel that is embraced by the left and forced onto our children...

I'm confused now. I thought it was secular, not Pagan. Those are different concepts.

...And someone sent their kids to a Unitarian Church to get a religion merit badge? That's like getting your marksmanship merit badge from a school for the blind. What a tragedy!"

Yes, how awful that a family practiced values that aren't yours!

By the way, you know whose parents have really reaped the benefits of sheltering their daughter, only letting her associate with other Christians and listen to Christian music, and teaching her how awful lesbians are? Katy Perry's. As in, the singer of "I Kissed a Girl." You just keep on keeping on, Marcia Segelstein and friends, and God'll give you *everything* you want!