My wife and I were recently driving back to Illinois from Florida. Along the way, we passed through the heart of the Bible Belt, and during that time, we encountered a few things that got me thinking.
Here's the scene. We're driving through Alabama. Both sides of the interstate are dotted with billboards of various types, usually advertising truck stops, restaurants, local attractions, and the like. We come over a hill and are confronted with a completely new sort of billboard. This is what it said:
Go to church...
or the Devil will get you
My wife and I discussed this at some length. Why didn't it say something like "Go to church because it is the right thing to do"? Personally, I don't think it is the right thing to do, but a person is welcome to make that argument. Or, better yet, why not something like "Do something nice for someone today," or "Donate to your favorite charity"? No, no, can't do that. Instead, let's make a ridiculous threat. This, in microcasm, illustrates the absurdity of religion as a whole.
This is, in its own way, very reminiscent of techniques employed by high-pressure sales people. Consider the situations where you frequently encounter high-pressure sales. Almost without question, this is in situations where the object being peddled requires significant convincing of the potential customer by the person doing the selling. In my experience, the moment this becomes apparent, I excuse myself from the conversation. If the object in question were as stupendous and valuable (insert the positive descriptive term of your choice), then the reasons for acquiring it would be self-evident. In theory, all the sales person would have to do is present the object, explain its features, describe any limitations, and then present the terms for purchase. The old "it isn't a question of how you can afford this, but how can you not afford it" is, in virtually every case, used in situations where the object (or service or whatever) in question is superfluous and/or provides little or no significant value and/or fails to live up to its intended purpose. The key point here is that high-pressure sales wouldn't be necessary if there wasn't some catch. The catch might be that it costs more than it appears at first glance, or it might be that in the fine print you are agreeing to something beyond the scope of what the buyer might otherwise expect.
A favorite response of mine, when presented with someone making a gross generalization or unfounded claim is simply "cite your source." People are basically pack animals. If an individual presents himself or herself as a person of authority, the natural tendency is to treat them as a person of authority, at least until such time as evidence to the contrary becomes available. As such, if a person presents a claim with conviction and with an air of authority or finality, there is a natural tendency to accept it, or at least treat it with greater value than would otherwise be warranted. This is a cognitive bias known as the "authority bias." You see this sort of thing all the time in advertising. How many times have we encountered unsupported phrases like "voted the best..." or "studies have shown..." The best response to these claims is "cite your source." Or, if you prefer to be a little more situation specific, in these two examples we could simply ask "voted by whom?" or "what studies, who conducted them, and under what conditions?" In either case, the onus now falls back on the person making the claim, as it should be.
Go to church, or the Devil will get you. Really? Cite your source. I'm sure in this case the response would ultimately boil down to "well, the Bible says so." I am certainly no Biblical scholar (though interestingly I, as is the case with many of my fellow secular humanists, seem to have a deeper knowledge of the actual contents of the Bible than many of my religious friends), but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I doubt the Bible contains the phrase "go to church or the devil will get you" anywhere in its pages.
There was another religious sign, this one in front of a church, which I think sums up the entire argument. I went back to take a photo of the sign, but unfortunately, they changed it before I returned. "Reason is the enemy of religion." Groundless, unsupported claims are made, preying (pun intended) upon uncertainty, groupo behavior, cognitive biases, guilt, and fear. Reason is the enemy of religion? Yes. Yes it is.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Douchebag of the Week
Well, I have the honor this week of presenting the prestigious Copious Vitriol Douchebag of the Week award. This week's award will present a couple firsts for Copious Vitriol. (Here's to the hope they shall also remain rare!)
First off, there is going to be a sports focus. Several of our founding members couldn't care much less about mainstream professional sports in the US, UK, elsewhere in Europe or beyond. The few of us who are, indeed, sports fans are of the ilk that tend to not take it too seriously. We are not the type who refer to any particular team or group of these people as "we" or "us." We don't tattoo obnoxious pictures, logos or clever sayings representing our voracious support of said people or team to areas of our bodies that, frankly, should be covered except when bathing. Put simply, we do not "bleed pewter and mauve (or substitute your local team's colors here)."
Second, there is not an individual DotW this time. Though there are numerous people who can be singled out in this instance, it is no one person who deserves my venom, but many.
These things being said, let us proceed . . .
Douchebag of the Week, December 26, 2008
The Douchebag of the Week is the New York Yankees professional American baseball organization. By "organization" in this case I mean everyone closely related to the team legally OR unofficially -- owners, players, rabid fans, etc. They are all at fault.
This week the Yankees tentatively signed first-baseman Mark Texeira to a contract worth a reported $180 million (or more, depending on the media report) over 8 years (he must take a physical before the contract is official). This signing falls shortly on the heels of two other huge player signings for the team -- pitchers CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett for a combined $243.5 million. For those of you without a calculator at the ready, that totals over $423 million for just three players.
To put these "purchases" in perspective, ponder these few facts. First, a professional American baseball team can have 25 players on their roster at any time. For just these three, the Yankees have nearly a half-billion dollars wrapped up in contract commitments. Next, in the past year another professional American baseball team -- the Milwaukee Brewers -- were sold to a new owner for less than $250 million. That's for the WHOLE TEAM, including the players, staff, etc., etc. and yes, they do play in the same league as the Yankees (Major League Baseball or "MLB"). As a matter of fact, the Milwaukee Brewers are the most recent team the aforementioned Mr. Sabathia pitched for. Also, if instead of committing the $400-plus million to these three contracts, the Yankees organization had purchased General Motors stock, they would own well over 25% of the corporation (this little tidbit was passed on to me over turkey and wine this week and I HAVE NOT checked its validity, but the person who told me is typically reliable, so there it is). Finally, the current roster salary for the entire Florida Marlins team for 2008 according to ESPN.COM is less than $25 million and there are 20 MLB teams with an overall salary of less than $100 million for the year.
Why does any of this matter? Free Enterprise is the name of the game after all, right? If the fans and the economy can sustain such ridiculous overspending, who cares? When looking at just those questions, I couldn't agree more. However, we cannot suspend reality and limit the analysis to this simplistic view. The problem is what this drunken excess says to the nation and the world. This is a rare time in the United States. We are at a point that most of us have only read about but could never imagine. It's a time when a staggering number of families are struggling to put food on the table, if they can still afford to have a table. It's a time when the entire financial infrastructure we have grown to take for granted is on the brink of collapse and the American auto industry cannot afford to keep their doors open. When retail giants nationwide are closing their doors and millions of Americans are without jobs. This is a time when some of the wealthiest Americans recognize how fortunate they are and are giving back at record rates and others of the elite are crashing down to the level of us -- the Humble Average.
And in the middle of all this, there stands the New York Yankees, arrogantly snubbing their nose at the condition of the country and the typical sports fan. They believe they are above all that. They have the audacity to exercise their elitist attitude during the Christmas holiday, a time when all too many of us are faced with the reality that we can't spend the way we would like in order to provide that materialistic happiness to our children that would make us proud. The New York Yankees believe they are entitled to live the way they want no matter what because they don't have to worry about consequences. And, sadly enough, they are correct.
So, here's to you, New York Yankees! You are, without a doubt, the Douchebags of the Week.
First off, there is going to be a sports focus. Several of our founding members couldn't care much less about mainstream professional sports in the US, UK, elsewhere in Europe or beyond. The few of us who are, indeed, sports fans are of the ilk that tend to not take it too seriously. We are not the type who refer to any particular team or group of these people as "we" or "us." We don't tattoo obnoxious pictures, logos or clever sayings representing our voracious support of said people or team to areas of our bodies that, frankly, should be covered except when bathing. Put simply, we do not "bleed pewter and mauve (or substitute your local team's colors here)."
Second, there is not an individual DotW this time. Though there are numerous people who can be singled out in this instance, it is no one person who deserves my venom, but many.
These things being said, let us proceed . . .
Douchebag of the Week, December 26, 2008
The Douchebag of the Week is the New York Yankees professional American baseball organization. By "organization" in this case I mean everyone closely related to the team legally OR unofficially -- owners, players, rabid fans, etc. They are all at fault.
This week the Yankees tentatively signed first-baseman Mark Texeira to a contract worth a reported $180 million (or more, depending on the media report) over 8 years (he must take a physical before the contract is official). This signing falls shortly on the heels of two other huge player signings for the team -- pitchers CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett for a combined $243.5 million. For those of you without a calculator at the ready, that totals over $423 million for just three players.
To put these "purchases" in perspective, ponder these few facts. First, a professional American baseball team can have 25 players on their roster at any time. For just these three, the Yankees have nearly a half-billion dollars wrapped up in contract commitments. Next, in the past year another professional American baseball team -- the Milwaukee Brewers -- were sold to a new owner for less than $250 million. That's for the WHOLE TEAM, including the players, staff, etc., etc. and yes, they do play in the same league as the Yankees (Major League Baseball or "MLB"). As a matter of fact, the Milwaukee Brewers are the most recent team the aforementioned Mr. Sabathia pitched for. Also, if instead of committing the $400-plus million to these three contracts, the Yankees organization had purchased General Motors stock, they would own well over 25% of the corporation (this little tidbit was passed on to me over turkey and wine this week and I HAVE NOT checked its validity, but the person who told me is typically reliable, so there it is). Finally, the current roster salary for the entire Florida Marlins team for 2008 according to ESPN.COM is less than $25 million and there are 20 MLB teams with an overall salary of less than $100 million for the year.
Why does any of this matter? Free Enterprise is the name of the game after all, right? If the fans and the economy can sustain such ridiculous overspending, who cares? When looking at just those questions, I couldn't agree more. However, we cannot suspend reality and limit the analysis to this simplistic view. The problem is what this drunken excess says to the nation and the world. This is a rare time in the United States. We are at a point that most of us have only read about but could never imagine. It's a time when a staggering number of families are struggling to put food on the table, if they can still afford to have a table. It's a time when the entire financial infrastructure we have grown to take for granted is on the brink of collapse and the American auto industry cannot afford to keep their doors open. When retail giants nationwide are closing their doors and millions of Americans are without jobs. This is a time when some of the wealthiest Americans recognize how fortunate they are and are giving back at record rates and others of the elite are crashing down to the level of us -- the Humble Average.
And in the middle of all this, there stands the New York Yankees, arrogantly snubbing their nose at the condition of the country and the typical sports fan. They believe they are above all that. They have the audacity to exercise their elitist attitude during the Christmas holiday, a time when all too many of us are faced with the reality that we can't spend the way we would like in order to provide that materialistic happiness to our children that would make us proud. The New York Yankees believe they are entitled to live the way they want no matter what because they don't have to worry about consequences. And, sadly enough, they are correct.
So, here's to you, New York Yankees! You are, without a doubt, the Douchebags of the Week.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Douchebag of the Week
We're going to institute a new recurring feature here on Copious Vitriol: Douchebag of the Week. This weekly award will be open to anyone. Visitors to the site are encouraged to nominate people via the comments section. If you nominate someone, please provide a brief explanation of why that person should be afforded the honor of joining those illustrious douchebags who have gone before (including links to supporting material, if available). This is an equal opportunity award. No one shall be excluded from consideration, and a person may be a recipient of the award multiple times. At an interval yet-to-be-determined, those recent winners will be put to a vote, and the winner will be granted the title of Uber Douchebag. Let us now announce the winner of the inaugural presentation of the Copious Vitriol Douchebag of the Week.
Rod Blagojevich
It is difficult to even find a good place to start with Gov. Blagojevich (or G-Rod as Nigel and God call him). The reasons for bestowing this honor upon him are as numerous as they are compelling. His behavior as it pertains to Illinois state government has been nothing short of mind boggling. He has routinely made decisions intended to punish those state officials and legistlators who have angered him. He has repeatedly overstepped the authority granted to the Governor under the Illinois Constitution. As far as he is concerned, the state of Illinois only exists north of I-80. He aggressively pushed one of the most contentious and ill-advised tax plans in recent memory. Any of these reasons would be enough to garner the attention of the Douchebag of the Week Nominating Committee, but what has earned him the title is the string of events he is alleged to have orchestrated surrounding the sale of Senate seat vacated by President-elect Obama.
While I am certainly no attorney, I think that his behavior has moved from the "weird" or "unusual" and into the realm that warrants a DSM-IV clinical diagnosis. Assuming this goes to trial, frankly I don't see how it could proceed without settling the question of whether or not he is fit to stand trial. His delusions of grandeur as evidenced by a.) his stated anger at not being chosen as John Kerry's running mate in 2004, even though he was never under consideration; b.) his assertion that he should get a Cabinet level post (Secretary of Energy because that's the one that makes the most money) or ambassadorship in exchange for the Obama Senate seat; c.) his repeated references to moving into a more powerful position as though it was already a done deal; d.) his stated willingness to appoint himself to the vacant Senate seat; e.) his flagrant disregard for such inconveniences as "rules" and "ethics," and f.) his repeated references to making a run for President in 2012, suggest that he lives in a world that those of us encumbered by reality simply can't understand. He is, simply put, a walking research paper for some enterprising psychiatrist. This self-important, masturbatory behavior is sort of like watching news footage of some sort of disaster: you're appalled by what you're seeing and you'd really like to stop watching, but you can't help yourself. This has the potential to eventually wind up on one of those "Smoking Gun Presents World's Dumbest Criminals" shows. This level of egregious idiocy is difficult to attain, to say nothing of maintaining that level, which he seems to have done with ease.
Bravo, Rod Blagojevich. You are the very first recipient of Copious Vitriol's Douchebag of the Week Award. You've earned it.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
My Conversation with God (Part 2)
So there I am, sitting in the waiting room at the dentist's office.
"Nigel?"
I look around, assuming that the person has appeared to call me back to see the dentist. I see no one except for the two ladies and older gentleman on the other side of the waiting room.
You're hearing things, old boy, I think to myself.
"Oh Nigel?"
I look around again. Still no one.
"Nigel, it's God."
On no, I think. Not again.
"Now is not a good time," I whisper, trying my best to avoid attracting attention. One of the older ladies glances up at me from her magazine.
"I don't care," God says. "I'm God. I do what I want."
"Wow," I say. "That sounds a bit antisocial. Have you ever seen a therapist? A good therapist might be able to help you with that."
Both of the older ladies are looking at me now. I smile and put my cell phone to my ear. Maybe I can pretend I'm talking to someone on the phone since, apparently, God isn't about to take no for an answer.
"Fine," I whisper into my cell phone. "We can talk until I get called back to see the dentist."
"I want to talk to you about Rod Blag....Blogg...Bogolo....the Illinois Governor."
"Bloody hell," I say. "What do you want to talk about that wanker for?"
"Because he's a wanker."
"Well that much is clear," I say, thinking that it really must be insulting to have God call you a wanker. Assuming that you believe in such things. Which I don't. And assuming that such things can happen in the first place. Which they can't.
"Here's the deal," God begins. "It is narcissistic, materialistic criminals like him who make me think that I maybe should have given the world to the monkeys."
"That's a line from an Elvis Costello song," I say.
"What is?"
"That you should have given the world to the monkeys."
"It is?"
"Yes."
"Seriously?"
"Now who's the one asking a lot of questions?"
"Ah," the big guy replies. "Touche."
"So Gov. Blogg....Bligil....Bigoll....G-Rod bothers you more than, say, George W. Bush? You didn't use such stern language when you were discussing him the other day."
"No, no," God replied. "W. is a one of a kind piece of work. He's not very bright and clearly has caused a great deal of trouble, but I don't think he's intentionally evil. G-Rod, I think, is."
"Do tell," I said.
"I put you people on this planet to be nice to each other."
"Point of order. You didn't put people on this planet. We evolved from simpler life forms over a very long period of time."
"Semantics," God said with a dismissive wave of his hand. What was particularly odd about this was that a.) since I can't see him, I didn't see him make a dismissive wave of his hand; and b.) given his absence of hands (or anything else, for that matter) waving his hand in a dismissive fashion is a tricky endeavor.
"No it isn't semantics," I argued. "What you said is patently wrong. There is no evidence to suggest your existence, while at the same time there is an increasingly large mountain of evidence to the contrary."
"You're talking to me, aren't you?" he said smugly.
With a roll of my eyes, I conceded the point. For the moment. A dentist's waiting room isn't the place to engage in a protracted debate with a deity over whether or not they exist in the first place. A doctor's waiting room, sure. The dining room in an MCL Cafeteria, you bet. A dentist's waiting room? That's just silly talk.
"My point is that you are supposed to be nice to each other," he continued.
"I guess I'd agree with that," I said with a shrug.
"It is in the Ten Commandments, you know."
"There's a commandment to be nice?"
"Well, not as such, no. The first three commandments, I freely admit, are a bit of self-congratulatory chest pounding on my part. But numbers 4 through 10 all boil down to 'be nice.' Is that so hard?"
"Apparently for some people, it is. Faulty programming I guess. Seems as though that could be seen as an error on the part of the programmer."
"Absolutely. There's no other explanatio--oh wait. I see where you're going. But you see, I created these rules to instill structure and order. Without these rules, there is disorder and chaos."
"So you're suggesting that prior to your handing down of these commandments that people thought that it was acceptable to kill, steal, lie, an covet their neighbor's ass?"
"I see no need for a potty mouth," he said.
"Did you have a point you were trying to make?" I asked. Now the older gentleman was looking at me too, and the older ladies were moving slowly toward the door.
"Yes. I'm tired of you people screwing each other over to get ahead or make a buck. Selling a U.S. Senate seat? That's simply offensive. I said it before and I'll say it again: wanker. Perhaps the commandments are too wordy."
"You'll get no argument from me. Perhaps a rewrite is in order."
"Yes," God said. "Commandments v2.0. With these new commandments, I will hand down to you, Nigel St. James, the meaning of life."
"Life, the Universe, and Everything?"
"No, just life."
"Fair enough. Lay it on me."
Thus the Lord spake to me. Well, actually he emailed them to me. So, without further ado, Commandments v2.0.
"Nigel?"
I look around, assuming that the person has appeared to call me back to see the dentist. I see no one except for the two ladies and older gentleman on the other side of the waiting room.
You're hearing things, old boy, I think to myself.
"Oh Nigel?"
I look around again. Still no one.
"Nigel, it's God."
On no, I think. Not again.
"Now is not a good time," I whisper, trying my best to avoid attracting attention. One of the older ladies glances up at me from her magazine.
"I don't care," God says. "I'm God. I do what I want."
"Wow," I say. "That sounds a bit antisocial. Have you ever seen a therapist? A good therapist might be able to help you with that."
Both of the older ladies are looking at me now. I smile and put my cell phone to my ear. Maybe I can pretend I'm talking to someone on the phone since, apparently, God isn't about to take no for an answer.
"Fine," I whisper into my cell phone. "We can talk until I get called back to see the dentist."
"I want to talk to you about Rod Blag....Blogg...Bogolo....the Illinois Governor."
"Bloody hell," I say. "What do you want to talk about that wanker for?"
"Because he's a wanker."
"Well that much is clear," I say, thinking that it really must be insulting to have God call you a wanker. Assuming that you believe in such things. Which I don't. And assuming that such things can happen in the first place. Which they can't.
"Here's the deal," God begins. "It is narcissistic, materialistic criminals like him who make me think that I maybe should have given the world to the monkeys."
"That's a line from an Elvis Costello song," I say.
"What is?"
"That you should have given the world to the monkeys."
"It is?"
"Yes."
"Seriously?"
"Now who's the one asking a lot of questions?"
"Ah," the big guy replies. "Touche."
"So Gov. Blogg....Bligil....Bigoll....G-Rod bothers you more than, say, George W. Bush? You didn't use such stern language when you were discussing him the other day."
"No, no," God replied. "W. is a one of a kind piece of work. He's not very bright and clearly has caused a great deal of trouble, but I don't think he's intentionally evil. G-Rod, I think, is."
"Do tell," I said.
"I put you people on this planet to be nice to each other."
"Point of order. You didn't put people on this planet. We evolved from simpler life forms over a very long period of time."
"Semantics," God said with a dismissive wave of his hand. What was particularly odd about this was that a.) since I can't see him, I didn't see him make a dismissive wave of his hand; and b.) given his absence of hands (or anything else, for that matter) waving his hand in a dismissive fashion is a tricky endeavor.
"No it isn't semantics," I argued. "What you said is patently wrong. There is no evidence to suggest your existence, while at the same time there is an increasingly large mountain of evidence to the contrary."
"You're talking to me, aren't you?" he said smugly.
With a roll of my eyes, I conceded the point. For the moment. A dentist's waiting room isn't the place to engage in a protracted debate with a deity over whether or not they exist in the first place. A doctor's waiting room, sure. The dining room in an MCL Cafeteria, you bet. A dentist's waiting room? That's just silly talk.
"My point is that you are supposed to be nice to each other," he continued.
"I guess I'd agree with that," I said with a shrug.
"It is in the Ten Commandments, you know."
"There's a commandment to be nice?"
"Well, not as such, no. The first three commandments, I freely admit, are a bit of self-congratulatory chest pounding on my part. But numbers 4 through 10 all boil down to 'be nice.' Is that so hard?"
"Apparently for some people, it is. Faulty programming I guess. Seems as though that could be seen as an error on the part of the programmer."
"Absolutely. There's no other explanatio--oh wait. I see where you're going. But you see, I created these rules to instill structure and order. Without these rules, there is disorder and chaos."
"So you're suggesting that prior to your handing down of these commandments that people thought that it was acceptable to kill, steal, lie, an covet their neighbor's ass?"
"I see no need for a potty mouth," he said.
"Did you have a point you were trying to make?" I asked. Now the older gentleman was looking at me too, and the older ladies were moving slowly toward the door.
"Yes. I'm tired of you people screwing each other over to get ahead or make a buck. Selling a U.S. Senate seat? That's simply offensive. I said it before and I'll say it again: wanker. Perhaps the commandments are too wordy."
"You'll get no argument from me. Perhaps a rewrite is in order."
"Yes," God said. "Commandments v2.0. With these new commandments, I will hand down to you, Nigel St. James, the meaning of life."
"Life, the Universe, and Everything?"
"No, just life."
"Fair enough. Lay it on me."
Thus the Lord spake to me. Well, actually he emailed them to me. So, without further ado, Commandments v2.0.
So, there you have it. Don't be a jerk. Don't be stupid. And be nice. G-Rod, not only are you an embarrassment to your political party, you are an embarrassment to your state, and to your species.
# $Header: Commandments,v 2.0 2008/12/10 13:17:54 god Exp $
#
# $Changelog: Commandments,v $
# Revision 2.0 2008/12/10 13:17:54 13:17:54 god (God)
# Major rewrite of previous version. Emailed to Nigel.
#
# Revision 1.4 2008/11/05 16:32:36 16:32:36 god (God)
# Rolled back to previous version. Failed to pass QA review.
#
# Revision 1.3 1099/12/31 02:44:12 02:44:12 god (God)
# Fixed typo. Updated with info gathered from first Crusade.
#
# Revision 1.2 0712/10/24 14:30:13 14:30:13 god (God)
# *** empty log message ***
#
# Revision 1.1 0033/04/03 15:00:01 15:00:01 god (God)
# Still PO'd at Pontius Pilate. And at Judas. Don't get me
# started on Judas. Added 11th commandment in response to
# crucifixion. (Note to self: bake JC a cake.)
# - 11th Commandment: Don't crucify my son, you jerks.
#
# Revision 1.0 0000/00/00 09:36:55 09:36:55 god (God)
# Initial draft, presented to Moses. Next time, use something
# other than burning bush. Took forever to get the smell of
# smoke out of my clothes.
1. Don't be a Jerk.
2. Don't be Stupid.
3. Be nice.
Friday, December 5, 2008
My Conversation with God (Part 1)
[Editor's Note: Please join me in welcoming our newest contributor, Nigel St. James. Nigel brings with him a wealth of experience and a healthy dose of that dry British wit. Glad to have you aboard, Nigel. --Kurt]
God spoke to me last night. I know what you're thinking. No one was more surprised than I. There I am, brushing my teeth, and out of nowhere, God starts talking to me. The conversation, which spanned such topics as love, peace, politics, cuisine, and (oddly) the upcoming Punisher movie, began this way.
Voice: Nigel?
Nigel: (spitting toothpaste into sink) Wha?
Voice: Hurry up and rinse. I can wait.
Nigel: (after rinsing) Wha?
Voice: Do you know who this is?
Nigel: Superman?
Voice: No. God.
Nigel: Seriously?
God (formerly "Voice"): Yes. Seriously.
Nigel: Uh, hi.
God: Hi. Have a seat. I need to talk to you.
Nigel (taking a seat on the nearby toilet): Ok. Look, what is this about? I don't actually believe in you...
God: Yeah, I know. That's what makes using you as my messenger particularly clever.
Nigel: Messenger?
God: Yes, messenger. You ask a lot of questions. Did you know that?
Nigel: I do?
God: Yes.
Nigel: Seriously?
God: Yes.
Nigel: I ask a lot of questions?
God: Stop that.
Nigel: Stop what? Oh...wait. Nevermind. Go on.
At this point, God (who informed me that "God" is a title and not a name and as such, aggressively dislikes the fact that it has taken on proper noun status in his case) told me he would prefer to be called Alan. I told him that I would prefer to be called Super Pimp. We agreed that neither of those things was likely to happen, so we changed the subject. He began by telling me how deeply disturbed he was by the number of people claiming that he speaks to them.
"I speak to very few people. Not counting you, I've spoken to only 6 people since the end of World War II," he said. "I want to talk to you about the people that claim I've spoken to them."
"Fine," said I. "Knock yourself out."
At this point, he proceeded to go over the most egregious offenders, starting with George W. Bush.
"He says I told him to run for President. I didn't. I don't know who he was speaking to, but it wasn't me. My best guess is that he was actually speaking to Satan. It happened to Mohammed, you know. When he was receiving my dictation of the Quran, he accidentally started channeling Satan. Hence those Satanic Verses that Salman Rushdie was writing about. Did you read that book, by the way?"
"No," I said. "Never got around to it."
"Me, neither. Wanted to know if it was any good. At any rate, my guess is that he was actually either talking to Satan or perhaps an errant fire elemental. Or a pixie. Could have been a pixie, I suppose. They're fond of pranks, those winged little buggers. My point is, he says I spoke to him, and I'm here to tell you I didn't. I command you to spread the word that I didn't speak to him."
"Don't take this the wrong way," I said, "but I don't respond well to people telling me what to do. That's why I never entered Her Majesty's armed services. I don't like people giving me orders."
"Fine," God (Alan?) said with a sigh. "Would you please spread the word?"
"Can do. What else is on your mind?"
"Sarah Palin."
"Is she retarded?" I asked.
"No, not retarded. She said she reads all the magazines and newspapers. Didn't you hear that? I don't think someone developmentally challenged could do that, do you?"
"Well, no," I replied, unable to keep the tone of contempt out of my voice. "I don't think she actually does read them. Given the absurdity of many of her statements and the fact that here we are a month after the U.S. Presidential election and she's still belching up the same old stump speech with a few minor variations, I think she's either delusional or willfully disingenuous."
"You may have a point, there," God conceeded.
"Thank you."
"You're welcome. At any rate, she said that she's going to wait for me to tell her what to do with regard to running for national office. I assume she was talking about running for President when she said that. I've done everything short of sending her smoke signals since then to tell her that I want her to sit down and be very quiet. Her 15 minutes of fame are over, but she won't sit down. I don't get it. We've got some people claiming I'm talking to them when I'm not, and I've got her saying she's waiting for me to tell her something when I've been screaming it at her and sending her every conceivable message telling her that I want her to close her quaint, folksy, fear-mongering yap, but she just won't do it. Could you spread the word about that, too?"
The conversation continued for almost an hour. I'll post more about it another time. I finally had to break off the conversation because it was time for Top Chef, which he admitted that he, too, enjoyed a great deal. He also said that he had more things he wanted to talk to me about in the near future. When he does, I'll post about it here.
Voice: Nigel?
Nigel: (spitting toothpaste into sink) Wha?
Voice: Hurry up and rinse. I can wait.
Nigel: (after rinsing) Wha?
Voice: Do you know who this is?
Nigel: Superman?
Voice: No. God.
Nigel: Seriously?
God (formerly "Voice"): Yes. Seriously.
Nigel: Uh, hi.
God: Hi. Have a seat. I need to talk to you.
Nigel (taking a seat on the nearby toilet): Ok. Look, what is this about? I don't actually believe in you...
God: Yeah, I know. That's what makes using you as my messenger particularly clever.
Nigel: Messenger?
God: Yes, messenger. You ask a lot of questions. Did you know that?
Nigel: I do?
God: Yes.
Nigel: Seriously?
God: Yes.
Nigel: I ask a lot of questions?
God: Stop that.
Nigel: Stop what? Oh...wait. Nevermind. Go on.
At this point, God (who informed me that "God" is a title and not a name and as such, aggressively dislikes the fact that it has taken on proper noun status in his case) told me he would prefer to be called Alan. I told him that I would prefer to be called Super Pimp. We agreed that neither of those things was likely to happen, so we changed the subject. He began by telling me how deeply disturbed he was by the number of people claiming that he speaks to them.
"I speak to very few people. Not counting you, I've spoken to only 6 people since the end of World War II," he said. "I want to talk to you about the people that claim I've spoken to them."
"Fine," said I. "Knock yourself out."
At this point, he proceeded to go over the most egregious offenders, starting with George W. Bush.
"He says I told him to run for President. I didn't. I don't know who he was speaking to, but it wasn't me. My best guess is that he was actually speaking to Satan. It happened to Mohammed, you know. When he was receiving my dictation of the Quran, he accidentally started channeling Satan. Hence those Satanic Verses that Salman Rushdie was writing about. Did you read that book, by the way?"
"No," I said. "Never got around to it."
"Me, neither. Wanted to know if it was any good. At any rate, my guess is that he was actually either talking to Satan or perhaps an errant fire elemental. Or a pixie. Could have been a pixie, I suppose. They're fond of pranks, those winged little buggers. My point is, he says I spoke to him, and I'm here to tell you I didn't. I command you to spread the word that I didn't speak to him."
"Don't take this the wrong way," I said, "but I don't respond well to people telling me what to do. That's why I never entered Her Majesty's armed services. I don't like people giving me orders."
"Fine," God (Alan?) said with a sigh. "Would you please spread the word?"
"Can do. What else is on your mind?"
"Sarah Palin."
"Is she retarded?" I asked.
"No, not retarded. She said she reads all the magazines and newspapers. Didn't you hear that? I don't think someone developmentally challenged could do that, do you?"
"Well, no," I replied, unable to keep the tone of contempt out of my voice. "I don't think she actually does read them. Given the absurdity of many of her statements and the fact that here we are a month after the U.S. Presidential election and she's still belching up the same old stump speech with a few minor variations, I think she's either delusional or willfully disingenuous."
"You may have a point, there," God conceeded.
"Thank you."
"You're welcome. At any rate, she said that she's going to wait for me to tell her what to do with regard to running for national office. I assume she was talking about running for President when she said that. I've done everything short of sending her smoke signals since then to tell her that I want her to sit down and be very quiet. Her 15 minutes of fame are over, but she won't sit down. I don't get it. We've got some people claiming I'm talking to them when I'm not, and I've got her saying she's waiting for me to tell her something when I've been screaming it at her and sending her every conceivable message telling her that I want her to close her quaint, folksy, fear-mongering yap, but she just won't do it. Could you spread the word about that, too?"
The conversation continued for almost an hour. I'll post more about it another time. I finally had to break off the conversation because it was time for Top Chef, which he admitted that he, too, enjoyed a great deal. He also said that he had more things he wanted to talk to me about in the near future. When he does, I'll post about it here.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
A Matter of Perspective
Perhaps it's a matter of perspective. Here it is, the day before Thanksgiving. I got an email earlier today from a person on one of the projects I'm working on. The email was sent to everyone working on the project. I don't know this person in the least, and to be honest, I'm not sure I've ever actually seen this person. The email was unimportant, but concluded with something that struck me a odd.
"Have a safe and blessed Thanksgiving!"
Why is it, I ask myself, that a.) a person feels compelled to wish people they don't even know a "blessed" anything; and b.) why is it that people seem to have a need to proclaim their personal religious beliefs to any and all?
Before going further, let me state for the record that it wasn't as though I was offended by the comment in the email. This general topic is something I've had in the back of my head for a while, and today's email just made me think of it again. So while the statement in today's email was, to me at least, a little off, I'm not lambasting the statement itself, its intent, or the sender. That said, let's dig in.
When I was reading Sam Harris's book The End of Faith, I was particularly struck when he highlights the ubiquity and the weirdness of religious leaning statements by suggesting that the next time you encounter a reference to a religious figure in something you read or hear, to quietly replace that reference with another of your choice. Personally I'm a big fan of Thor. (The god of thunder, not the comic book, though the comic book is not without its charm.) Consider the following relatively common phrases:
- In God we trust
- The project manager called a "come to Jesus" meeting
- God bless America
- What Would Jesus Do?
Now let's reword them as follows:
- In Zeus we trust
- The project manager called a "come to Isis" meeting
- Odin bless America
- What Would Athena Do?
Sounds very odd, doesn't it? Or consider this statement made recently by an acquaintance of mine: "We have a funeral to go to this weekend. My husband's uncle passed away. He went to see Jesus." What if she had said "He went to see Gonesh"? Or "He went to see Thor"? Had she said that, it would have been comedy. Instead, it was said with solemnity and reverance. Why? If, as traditional Christian (...trying to think of a better word than "dogma".....) philosophy suggests, the deceased goes to a place of eternal bliss, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say something along the lines of "My husband's uncle died! Lucky bastard. Talk about hitting the jackpot..." We, for whatever reason, live in a society where the palpable religious undercurrent is not only tolerated, but flat-out encouraged. Consider the number of vehicles you see on a daily basis with silver Jesus fish on them. For what reason is it deemed necessary to proclaim that you are a devotee of a flawed, bronze age, internally contradictory school of thought? Could you imagine the uproar if someone were to drive around with some sort of symbol or phrase proclaiming they were members of a Satanic church? Or a church devoted to one of Yahweh's old rivals, Ba'al? Or how about a bumper sticker that reads "Voodoo. Sort of like Christianity, only cooler." Or maybe "Follow me to the Church of the Golden Calf." Or "In the event of Ragnarok, this vehicle will be unmanned."
The point is that it is silly. I can already hear someone yelling "Free speech! Are you trying to take away my right to free speech?" It is said that there are no stupid questions, but this one comes fairly close to the mark. No. I'm not suggesting restricting free speech in any way. It is your right to say it, and it is my right to say that I think the fact that you've said it is an embarrassment to the species, and the only thing that even comes close to excusing it is the fact that you are so blindly stuck in some bucolic school of thought that you are naively unaware that you are trying to pull the entire species a step back down the evolutionary ladder.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Lincoln, Lenin, Satan, and Facial Hair
Generally speaking, I love Sundays. They tend to be fairly quiet and kinda lazy. The Sunday morning ritual at our house has become sitting on the sofa with my two year old daughter, sharing a bowl of oatmeal, and watching Scooby Doo. So this morning, I turned on the television and some yowling, fire-and-brimstone zealot was on the screen, and what I heard nearly made me collapse to the floor. (I'm paraphrasing here since I, thankfully, don't have the exact verbiage committed to memory.) This is what this gentleman said:
The statement is clearly intended to establish that Lincoln was a Christian and therefore good, and Lenin was an atheist and therefore evil. Was Lincoln a Christian? A de facto Christian, as were most Americans at the time. He was, however, more of the deist variety. Consider the following quote from Lincoln:
Am I defending Lenin as an exemplary figure? Certainly not. Personally (especially since I grew up in Springfield, Illinois, one of Lincoln's home towns), I prefer Lincoln. He was a brave man making difficult decisions under circumstances that most of us are incapable of ever fully understanding. Even if I were willing to stipulate that Lenin was evil and Lincoln was good (which I'm not), the argument made by today's zealot really only carries any weight if one were able to say that Lenin was evil because he was atheist and Lincoln was good because he was Christian. This, clearly, is not the case, and even casual research successfully torpedoes that argument. To even attempt to make the argument is as absurd as saying that Lenin was evil because he was bald and Lincoln was good because he had a full head of hair. Or maybe because Lincoln had facial hair? No, wait a minute. Lenin had a goatee, so that won't work. How about this? Maybe beard = good and goatee = bad? Hey, maybe we're onto something here. Satan is frequently depicted with a goatee. Or is it a Muskateer? Or maybe a Van Dyke? So Satan is depicted with a goatee, Lenin wore a goatee, Satan is evil, so Lenin is evil. Q.E.D. So what does this mean for those of us who are clean shaven? I used to wear a goatee (or was it a Van Dyke?). Does that mean I was more evil then than I am now?
It is my sincere hope that such absurdities as those spewed by this morning's zealot, which have all the validity and legitimacy of such gems of rational thought as Phrenology, will go the way of balancing one's humours. Next Sunday, when I turn on the tv for the Sunday dose of Scooby Doo, first order of business is to make sure it is tuned to a channel that won't piss me off while I'm waiting for the DVD player to spin up.
We are a nation built on "in God we trust." That's why we produce Abraham Lincolns and not Lenins. It is the atheists who are the cause of our problems.There were a number of things with this statement that left me feeling rather nonplussed. First, I assume he was referring to Vladimir Lenin, and not John Lennon. I assume this based solely on context, since Lenin was indeed an atheist and Lennon, while rejecting organized religion, had more of a vague spiritualist perspective. Setting that aside, let's look at what I presume was the intended point of this statement.
The statement is clearly intended to establish that Lincoln was a Christian and therefore good, and Lenin was an atheist and therefore evil. Was Lincoln a Christian? A de facto Christian, as were most Americans at the time. He was, however, more of the deist variety. Consider the following quote from Lincoln:
The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.Or how about this one?
My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.In addition, Lincoln was referred to as an "infidel." So was he a Christian of the variety that the speaker no doubt was alluding to? Certainly not. So was Lenin an atheist? Yes. Plain and simple. So at face value, the hate mongering comment from this zealot falls apart under its own weight. But, like any good boxing fan, I prefer the knockout rather than having to go to the judges for the decision, so let's dig a little deeper.
Am I defending Lenin as an exemplary figure? Certainly not. Personally (especially since I grew up in Springfield, Illinois, one of Lincoln's home towns), I prefer Lincoln. He was a brave man making difficult decisions under circumstances that most of us are incapable of ever fully understanding. Even if I were willing to stipulate that Lenin was evil and Lincoln was good (which I'm not), the argument made by today's zealot really only carries any weight if one were able to say that Lenin was evil because he was atheist and Lincoln was good because he was Christian. This, clearly, is not the case, and even casual research successfully torpedoes that argument. To even attempt to make the argument is as absurd as saying that Lenin was evil because he was bald and Lincoln was good because he had a full head of hair. Or maybe because Lincoln had facial hair? No, wait a minute. Lenin had a goatee, so that won't work. How about this? Maybe beard = good and goatee = bad? Hey, maybe we're onto something here. Satan is frequently depicted with a goatee. Or is it a Muskateer? Or maybe a Van Dyke? So Satan is depicted with a goatee, Lenin wore a goatee, Satan is evil, so Lenin is evil. Q.E.D. So what does this mean for those of us who are clean shaven? I used to wear a goatee (or was it a Van Dyke?). Does that mean I was more evil then than I am now?
It is my sincere hope that such absurdities as those spewed by this morning's zealot, which have all the validity and legitimacy of such gems of rational thought as Phrenology, will go the way of balancing one's humours. Next Sunday, when I turn on the tv for the Sunday dose of Scooby Doo, first order of business is to make sure it is tuned to a channel that won't piss me off while I'm waiting for the DVD player to spin up.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Lieberman and the Magic Donkey
All right, Joe. Here's the deal. This morning I was reading a post on Huffington Post that read as an open letter to Joe Lieberman. The letter essentially said that rather than not being punished, he had been made to look small by the magninimity of Presedent-elect Obama and the Senate Democrats. True, Lieberman's actions will be under a microscope, and Senate Democrats can indeed vote him out of his leadership roles as needed. However, my big complaint with Lieberman here is that he shouldn't be in the Senate anymore in the first place. You lost your own party's primary, Joe. Come on. Seriously. You are supposed to be representing the people of your state. Those people, via the 2006 primary, said "Thanks, Joe, but your services are no longer required." To which Joe responded by saying "I'm going to run anyway." This is tantamount to flipping the bird to the Democratic voters of the state. Then, somehow, he managed to win in the general election. The "how" portion of this sad fact is water under the bridge and warrants no comment from me. It is worth stating, though, that Mr. Lieberman is clearly engaging in some sort of weird, masturbatorial crusade that, hopefully, will be brought to an end and he can disappear into obscurity as a petulant, self-serving footnote.
First he says "I don't care what the voters say, I'm going to run for Senate anyway." Then he says "The candidate from my own party is unqualified to be President and may even be unpatriotic." Then he says "If you strip me of my chairmanships, I'll take my toys and go play for the other team." And THEN he says that he wasn't punished at all. You are a sad, sad man, Mr. Lieberman. As an elected Senator, you are (in theory at least) supposed to be representing the people. Instead, you have chosen to represent yourself. You are performing an act of self-gratification. Were it not so tragic, it would be funny. So go on performing your self-gratification for the next four years until you come up for re-election again. Hopefully by that time the people of your state will have had their fill of watching you flog the magic donkey.
First he says "I don't care what the voters say, I'm going to run for Senate anyway." Then he says "The candidate from my own party is unqualified to be President and may even be unpatriotic." Then he says "If you strip me of my chairmanships, I'll take my toys and go play for the other team." And THEN he says that he wasn't punished at all. You are a sad, sad man, Mr. Lieberman. As an elected Senator, you are (in theory at least) supposed to be representing the people. Instead, you have chosen to represent yourself. You are performing an act of self-gratification. Were it not so tragic, it would be funny. So go on performing your self-gratification for the next four years until you come up for re-election again. Hopefully by that time the people of your state will have had their fill of watching you flog the magic donkey.
Center-Right and God
On Tuesday, November 4, 2008, I sat with my wife watching the election returns. We had CNN on the television, and had a variety of political sites up on our respective laptops. During the course of that tense-then-jubilant evening, a number of things bubbled to the surface here and there that, I think, warrant some discussion. First, the notion that the United States is a "center-right" nation.
Bill Bennet repeated the statement during CNN's election coverage. Why was this statement made? Well, because lots of other right-wing pundits have been saying it, so Bill Bennet, being a standard bearer for the Republican party, merely repeats it. In typical Karl Rove style, the idea is that if you repeat something enough times (fill in your favorite example here: "blame game," "cut and run," and the more recent "he's a socialist" just to name a few), that will make it true. Here I get to use one of my favorite phrases: you can call a shovel an ice cream truck all you want, but it is still a shovel. On what grounds can Republicans make the claim that the United States is a center-right nation? Apparently, according to polls, more people identify themselves as conservative than liberal. Please note that this is exclusively a brand question, and not a question on specific issues, from which one may deduce the subject's political proclivitity. Coke or Pepsi? Pancakes or waffles? Paper or plastic? Labels are, quite frankly, of minimal use in this context. A much more useful indicator is to look at voting patterns in this past election. Look at the results from the November 4 election. Does that look like a center-right nation? I think not. Having had their fill of the cataclysmically maladroit governance of the Bush administration, the majority said that it was time for moving in a different direction. I grow so very, very tired of the Karl Rove-esque "repetition = truth" philosophy.
The other issue, and what I think may in fact be the more important one, is the God issue. Elizabeth Dole, in the last dying throes of her campaign, went with the God angle and released ads calling her opponent "godless." Kay Hagan, who (thankfully) ended up winning Dole's seat in the Senate, fired back with what amounted to "says you." Why is it that in a country that explicitly has separation of church and state, that a.) we have to bring god into the debate at all; and b.) it is somehow seen as a slur against one's moral fiber to be called "godless," and must be loudly and vehemently refuted? This treads into an area that I plan on digging into repeatedly (and at length) in future posts, so I'll only hit a few major points here.
First, a person's personal beliefs are simply that: Personal. Beliefs. Consider what Elizabeth Dole was actually saying in her ads. "My opponent consorts with people who aren't God-fearing Christians, which--by implication--I am." Excuse me? And this has a bearing on a person's fitness to be a Senator in what way? This, in some way, is supposed to make Elizabeth Dole a better Senator than Kay Hagan? "I love Jesus more than she does, so you should vote for me." When I was in grade school (and I realize that I'm seriously dating myself here), I vividly remember a kid on the playground telling me once, "I like 'Happy Days' more than you do. I like 'Happy Days' more than *anybody*." Ummmmm......so? I remember looking at this kid like he was out of his mind. "Who cares?" I thought then, and with the Elizabeth Dole thing I think it again now: who cares? Kay Hagan did what she had to do under the circumstances by firing back with what amounted to "Oh no I'm not godless." I would have loved to see her come back with something more along the lines of "And what, exactly, does that have to do with anything?"
Second, why should a person's faith (or lack thereof) in any way affect their social standing or be taken as a measurement for their ability to govern? I can already hear people saying "Well, strong Christian belief is necessary for determining right from wrong, and for determining what is *really* important." To this I can only say "no it isn't." Richard Dawkins said it far more elloquently than I, so I won't attempt to recreate his argument here. I will merely say that if you think you get your moral compass (pardon the use of the phrase) from scripture--which states that people should be killed for working on Sunday and that a father has the right to sell his daughter into slavery--you are sadly, grossly, egregiously mistaken.
I have high hopes for what the election results say about the future of our country and the American people as a whole. Perhaps we can move away from this absurd "End Days" Theocracy that has so heinously tarnished the image of the United States in the world view. The short-sighted views of the last 8 years, much of which was geared around attempting to fulfill Biblical prophecy and thus bring about the return of Jesus, would be comedy were it not so terrifying. Mr. Obama, you have my support and the support of many, many others like me. You have rekindled my faith in the very ideas upon which this country was founded. We have a long and difficult road ahead of us as we try to pull ourselves back from the brink. Through hard work, compassion, understanding, and a willingness to show that same compassion and understanding to those who may think differetly, we'll get there.
Bill Bennet repeated the statement during CNN's election coverage. Why was this statement made? Well, because lots of other right-wing pundits have been saying it, so Bill Bennet, being a standard bearer for the Republican party, merely repeats it. In typical Karl Rove style, the idea is that if you repeat something enough times (fill in your favorite example here: "blame game," "cut and run," and the more recent "he's a socialist" just to name a few), that will make it true. Here I get to use one of my favorite phrases: you can call a shovel an ice cream truck all you want, but it is still a shovel. On what grounds can Republicans make the claim that the United States is a center-right nation? Apparently, according to polls, more people identify themselves as conservative than liberal. Please note that this is exclusively a brand question, and not a question on specific issues, from which one may deduce the subject's political proclivitity. Coke or Pepsi? Pancakes or waffles? Paper or plastic? Labels are, quite frankly, of minimal use in this context. A much more useful indicator is to look at voting patterns in this past election. Look at the results from the November 4 election. Does that look like a center-right nation? I think not. Having had their fill of the cataclysmically maladroit governance of the Bush administration, the majority said that it was time for moving in a different direction. I grow so very, very tired of the Karl Rove-esque "repetition = truth" philosophy.
The other issue, and what I think may in fact be the more important one, is the God issue. Elizabeth Dole, in the last dying throes of her campaign, went with the God angle and released ads calling her opponent "godless." Kay Hagan, who (thankfully) ended up winning Dole's seat in the Senate, fired back with what amounted to "says you." Why is it that in a country that explicitly has separation of church and state, that a.) we have to bring god into the debate at all; and b.) it is somehow seen as a slur against one's moral fiber to be called "godless," and must be loudly and vehemently refuted? This treads into an area that I plan on digging into repeatedly (and at length) in future posts, so I'll only hit a few major points here.
First, a person's personal beliefs are simply that: Personal. Beliefs. Consider what Elizabeth Dole was actually saying in her ads. "My opponent consorts with people who aren't God-fearing Christians, which--by implication--I am." Excuse me? And this has a bearing on a person's fitness to be a Senator in what way? This, in some way, is supposed to make Elizabeth Dole a better Senator than Kay Hagan? "I love Jesus more than she does, so you should vote for me." When I was in grade school (and I realize that I'm seriously dating myself here), I vividly remember a kid on the playground telling me once, "I like 'Happy Days' more than you do. I like 'Happy Days' more than *anybody*." Ummmmm......so? I remember looking at this kid like he was out of his mind. "Who cares?" I thought then, and with the Elizabeth Dole thing I think it again now: who cares? Kay Hagan did what she had to do under the circumstances by firing back with what amounted to "Oh no I'm not godless." I would have loved to see her come back with something more along the lines of "And what, exactly, does that have to do with anything?"
Second, why should a person's faith (or lack thereof) in any way affect their social standing or be taken as a measurement for their ability to govern? I can already hear people saying "Well, strong Christian belief is necessary for determining right from wrong, and for determining what is *really* important." To this I can only say "no it isn't." Richard Dawkins said it far more elloquently than I, so I won't attempt to recreate his argument here. I will merely say that if you think you get your moral compass (pardon the use of the phrase) from scripture--which states that people should be killed for working on Sunday and that a father has the right to sell his daughter into slavery--you are sadly, grossly, egregiously mistaken.
I have high hopes for what the election results say about the future of our country and the American people as a whole. Perhaps we can move away from this absurd "End Days" Theocracy that has so heinously tarnished the image of the United States in the world view. The short-sighted views of the last 8 years, much of which was geared around attempting to fulfill Biblical prophecy and thus bring about the return of Jesus, would be comedy were it not so terrifying. Mr. Obama, you have my support and the support of many, many others like me. You have rekindled my faith in the very ideas upon which this country was founded. We have a long and difficult road ahead of us as we try to pull ourselves back from the brink. Through hard work, compassion, understanding, and a willingness to show that same compassion and understanding to those who may think differetly, we'll get there.
Angry with an axe to grind
Welcome to Copious Vitriol. This is where I'll be writing about the things that strike me as weird, stupid, foolish, or downright evil. And, hopefully, it'll be funny, too. More to come...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
