Sucks to Be You!

LifeSiteNews is being sued for $500,000, isn't that tragic? (h/t to [redacted] for the heads up)

It is with great concern that we have to inform our readers that LifeSiteNews (LSN) Canada has been hit with a lawsuit – by a Catholic priest of all things!

Um, "things"? I'm fairly certain even Catholic priests are people.

Regular readers of LSN will need no introduction to Fr. Raymond Gravel – he’s the Quebec priest and former Member of Canada’s Parliament who, as we reported, said on a radio interview in 2004: “I am pro-choice and there is not a bishop on earth that will prevent me from receiving Communion, not even the Pope.”

I like this guy!

Then, in 2008, he defended the awarding of Canada’s highest civilian award to the country’s ‘father of abortion’ – arch-abortionist Henry Morgentaler!

"Arch-abortionist?" I think DC Comics just found its new villain! Henry Morgentaler, btw, is a doctor who has spent his career fighting for the right of women to have safe, legal abortions. That will be one boring comic.

During his political career he was rated as ‘pro-abortion’ by the political arm of the pro-life movement.

I'm surprised they didn't rate him "murderer".

He has also repeatedly and publicly criticized his church’s teachings on homosexuality and abortion.

And . . .? So have I. Of course, I'm not a priest, but still, publicly criticizing the RCC for their teachings on homosexuality and abortion isn't unusual in this day and age, and he's hardly the first priest to do so.

Even though LifeSiteNews reports have overwhelmingly reported on what Fr. Gravel himself has publicly said,

out of context, I guarantee you. That's pretty much all LSN does.

he is suing us for libel. Among other things, he argues that he isn’t pro-abortion, but he has said in the past that he is “pro-choice.”

Oh, I see. So you lied in a way that could do damage to Fr. Gravel's career (the definition of libel) and now you're all surprised he's doing something about it. You poor things.

He’s demanding $500,000 in damages – which, coincidentally, is a full year’s budget for us. That would put LifeSiteNews out of business!

Watch me while I weep. Or not.

At LSN we are completely dependent upon Divine Providence; we usually have just enough in our bank account to get by until our next quarterly fundraiser (if even!). We simply have no money to spend on potentially crippling legal fees.

So let me get this straight. God provides your operating budget, but not your legal fees? Interesting. I guess God's funding is like the WIC program, only good for very specific items.

This lawsuit also comes at the same time that attacks on the free speech rights of pro-life, pro-family and Christian citizens and media have been increasing all across the West.

I don't know what free speech rights are like in Canada, but lying does not come under the heading of free speech anywhere.

It is vitally important that LifeSiteNews win this case – not just for our sake, but for the sake of the whole movement. We simply cannot let the opponents of life and family shut down one of the few media voices that upholds the right to life and the sanctity of marriage and the family.

Gee, I thought LSN was a two bit internet site dependent entirely on lies, inflammatory interpretations and vicious misogyny. I had no idea that without them, my family will simply disappear.

The very fact that Fr. Gravel feels he has to sue LSN is proof-positive of just how much LSN is needed. Writing about LifeSiteNews.com in Le Devoir on April 20, 2009, Fr. Gravel said that when his bishop received a letter from the Vatican “which forced me to retire from political life,” attached to the letter “was a file almost exclusively in English made up of negative comments about me … which came from those ultra-conservative media.” He even complained about LifeSiteNews during a speech on the floor of the House of Commons!

Oh, I see. Wrong doing is proof of the need for wrong doing.

Despite the fact that LSN has made it clear that we wish no harm to Fr. Gravel, and that, in fact, we are concerned for his wellbeing, he has launched a suit that could severely, even permanently disrupt our life- and culture-saving work.

We care so much we ruined his life, but only to preserve misogyny and bigotry. It's a higher calling.

Already our staff have had to dedicate several full days’ work just to responding to his charges – and that’s before the case has even really begun. The first preliminary hearing is this Thursday in Joliette, Quebec.

Oh, poor LSN staff, having to do actual work instead of making shit up and defaming people.

At this difficult time, we must once again turn to our ever-faithful supporters. The only way we can withstand this attack is with your help.

We are confident about the truthfulness and professionalism of our reporting on this matter and are determined to fight and win against this unjust lawsuit. Will you join us?

Will you also appeal to others that you know to help us at this time of extra special need?

No. I will giggle when the good Father drains your bank accounts and attaches liens on your homes, if that's any consolation. Reap what you sow, motherfuckers, reap what you sow.

Where Is Ghandi, Exactly?

also entirely unlike justice, but hilarious

good, justice, christian, jesus, god, bible, ghandi,

The fun thing about having an account at Rapture Ready is being able to see their apologetics section. I literally cackled with glee upon seeing this topic raised: Where do good people go? It's a good question. Fundagelicals happily defend a belief system in which one's past deeds, no matter how heinous or admirable, are meaningless, and indeed, one's future deeds are equally meaningless. It's all about the sincerety of one's salvation. This creates a situation wherein Hitler, if he repented and accepted Jesus as his savior one second before he died, is enjoying the pleasures of Heaven, but the 6,000,000 Jews he had tortured and killed are roasting forever in hell.

This is entirely unlike justice.

If I were to create a list of things that are entirely unlike justice, this notion of justice would be no. 1 on the list. (Peanut butter would be no. 2.)

Which is why the idea of a defense for this extremely offensive bit of theology ("you molested 37 little kids? find by me! you worked your entire life to abolish oppression and inequality? fuck you and your many-handed gods!") is so terribly amusing.

How does one respond when someone says: "Well where do good people who aren't
Christian go? Like Gandhi or Mother Theresa or my atheist friend John who will
literally give you the shirt off his back and is the most kind person you'll
ever met. Do you expect me to believe that good people like them are all in
Hell?" (This is an excerpt from an email a co-worker sent me)

This comes off to me like the original poster is experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance. A true fundy knows exactly what to say to this, thusly:

I would say.....as good as people think others may be, or themselves, there is
none good but God. Every man must do the will of God, there are no exceptions.I
would then wait to see what they'd say. If they would agree with God, or not.

So in other words, you wouldn't really answer the question at all.

If they had a chance to know G-d and Jesus... Hell. Period. End of story.If they
were somehow remotely held away from society and any and all information about
their savior, then He will be the judge.It doesnt matter what Ghandi did, he was
hindu. It doesnt matter what any person does on this planet for the greater
good. If they are not saved by the blood of the lamb, then Hell is their
destination.We are not saved through acts or deeds, but through faith in Jesus
Christ. His blood covering and attoning for our sins.

You would answer the question with "Fuck yeah, Ghandi and holocaust victims are burning! Isn't that great?" Um, no, not so much.

It doesnt matter if the man is an athiest, agnostic, asatryu, bahai, buddhist,
zoroaster, hedonist, hellenist, follower of any number of pagan religions,
hindu, shiek, Jain, or any number of eastern religions... He will go to hell at
death, and the final judgement be cast into the lake of fire. No exceptions.He
could donate all his worldy goods to the poor. He could help anybody anywhere at
anytime. He could become a police officer and fight for victims rights. He could
become a politicians and strive to end poverty. He could litterally feed the
worlds homeless.... Acts don't mean he will be saved at the end.

Entirely unlike justice.

Look, if you happen to be the "atheist" in question (and fundys will qualify anyone outside their group as an atheist, so who knows), I would tell her that her belief is heinous, and her god, if he is real, does not deserve worship, but only condemnation. I would tell her that she has no idea what good is or what justice is, and that you don't want lose sight of those things yourself. Because I sure don't want to be that kind of evil.

Imagine That

bible, religion, justice, poverty, religious, right,

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be shocked by this:

Only 13 percent of Americans surveyed by Harris Interactive on behalf of the American Bible Society was able to correctly credit the Bible as the source of Proverbs 31:8-9, the Contemporary English Version of which states: “You must defend those who are helpless and have no hope. Be fair and give justice to the poor and homeless.”

I do not think this is an example of the sort of ignorance that keeps people from correctly identifying their own country on a map. I think this is a direct result of decades of the Religious Right villifying welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, immigrants (legal and otherwise), blacks, gays, and anyone else not them.

Right now, 45,000,000 of their fellow countrymen lack health insurance and are suffering for it. And the Religious Right lies about death panels and rationing. Bring up the poor and you'll be treated to a tirade about welfare queens. They froth at the mouth when gay rights come up and have equated law-abiding gays with pedophiles in TV ad after TV ad.

All this and they expect us to associate fairness and justice with the same Bible they're beating us over the heads with? Good luck with that.

3 out of 4 Republicans Agree- Rape Victims Should STFU

rape, franken, republican, justice
Due to the terrible injustice experienced by female employees of defense contractors, Al Franken suggested an amendment to the 2010 defense bill that would protect the rights of rape victims and help ensure that rapists are punished for their crimes. Guess who thinks that's a bad idea?

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and "warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

30 of 40 Republicans voted against that amendment.

3 out of 4 Republicans voted against rape victims getting their day in court. 3 out of 4 Republicans voted against rapists facing punishment.

Family values, my vagina. These people are monsters.

Now You're Just Scaring Me

obama, crime, recidivism, drug, justice, rehabilitation, liberal, conservative, townhall, stupid, religion, atheism,
Mike Adams, of townhall.com, defines the conservative view of humanity in terms that make me truly fear conservatives. I never really liked conservatism, but this just scares me.

The terms “liberal” and “conservative” are bandied about by many who fail to understand the crucial difference between them. that's actually true. those words do get thrown around without any regard for what they mean. i think Mr. Adams is about to add to the confusion. Many believe the difference lies in the liberal’s willingness to support government spending. But that explanation falls short. Conservatives are always willing to spend more on defense. Liberals would rather spend money on social programs. conservatives want to keep you safe from terrorists, liberals want to give welfare queens more money! of course, i could turn that around: conservatives want more pointless, endless wars and liberals want to feed children. we call that framing the argument.

Others believe the liberal is the one who supports “change” while the conservative supports the “status quo.” That explanation also falls short. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. When he came to Washington in 1981 he shook the establishment and brought about change the liberals could not believe in. can we please stop deifying President Reagan? He was deep into alzheimer's by his second term. I have no idea who was running the country from 85-89, but it wasn't him.

If there is one thing that separates the conservative from the liberal it is his view of human nature. wait for it . . . The conservative sees man as born in a broken state. oh dear. This tragic view well, yes, it would be of human nature sees man as selfish and hedonistic by design. headdesk. Given his nature, it is no wonder a man chooses crime. It is a wonder he ever chooses conformity. except that most people do not choose crime. most people do choose to obey the laws. i suppose asshat's answer to that is that the jaysus makes them that way, except that atheists act like everyone else, so clearly not.

This tragic view of human nature also explains why conservatives often speak of religion and family values. so it's not a cynical ploy to get conservative christians to vote for you against their own self interest? Given his selfish nature speak for yourself, asshat, man must internalize some reason to behave in pro-social ways. maybe you, not me. i cae up with on my own. That fact that he falls short of these values does not mean he is a hypocrite. The one who does not even believe what he says is the hypocrite. The one who believes what he says and falls short is merely human. (thus excusing the sexipades of many a republican hero.)

This is the fundamentalist christian view of mankind: everyone would be raping their children to death with chainsaws if it weren't for jaysus! that's ridiculous. of course we wouldn't. those commandments about not murdering and not stealing and not lying? those are societal rules common to all societies, including societies that never heard of jesus.

If that truly is how conservatives view mankind, that's just scary. It certainly explains conservative efforts to make official Years of the Bible, and affirm the US as a christian nation. Since the only thing holding them back from raping and pillaging is jaysus, they assume the rest of us need, for everyone's protection, jaysus, too. Look, Mr. Adams, we're not all hairtrigger psychopaths like you. Most of us don't want to rape and pillage. We don't need jaysus to tell us not to.

The conservative knows in advance that he (and others) will fall short of what religion expects of him. But his solution is not to give up on religion. His solution is to implement a back-up plan. In the context of crime, that back-up plan takes the form of a criminal justice system focused on punishment.

to rephrase: jaysus works, and when he doesn't, jails do!

let's review the recidivism rate, shall we?

Rearrest within 3 years

67.5% of prisoners released in 1994 were rearrested within 3 years, an increase over the 62.5% found for those released in 1983

The rearrest rate for property offenders, drug offenders, and public-order offenders increased significantly from 1983 to 1994. During that time, the rearrest rate increased:

- from 68.1% to 73.8% for property offenders
- from 50.4% to 66.7% for drug offenders
- from 54.6% to 62.2% for public-order offenders

The rearrest rate for violent offenders remained relatively stable (59.6% in 1983 compared to 61.7% in 1994).

Wow, prison's just the way to go, isn't it? works great. just like jaysus. (Look, don't ask me what to do with violent offenders, but nonviolent drug offenders, i.e., some guy caught with a few joints, are about 25% of all inmates. States spent approximately $17,110,415 per day to imprison drug offenders, or $6,245,301,475 per year. That can't be the answer.)

According to the conservative, effective punishment is that which produces fear of transgression. except that prison clearly does not do that. the recidivism rates are over 60%. That means that 6 out of 10 people released from prison ended up back in prison within 3 years. these are people who know exactly how bad prison is, and they're still not all that afraid of ending up back in prison, obviously. Fear of transgression occurs when the punishment is swift, certain, and severe. i.e., the death penalty. except that even the death penalty doesn't deter anyone. In sum, the conservative believes we should first try to love people into conformity. scariest sentence ever. If that does not work, we should scare people into conformity. no, sorry, this is the scariest sentence ever. But the liberal sees things differently. not so much on the conformity and the scaring, more on the loving. Everyone is born “good” with a blank slate. has this asshat met a baby? babies are the ultimate atheists. they're morally neutral. seriously, spend time with a baby. To the extent that people become “bad” it is because “society” corrupted them. he's not really stating the "liberal" position very well. Nowhere does the liberal explain how combining many good people makes a bad society. ummm, why would i have to explain that? it's just a total non sequitur. don't respond to non sequitors, it just encourages more of them.

But this is what the liberal thinks. no, it's not. And it is why he sees the criminal justice system as one which should focus on rehabilitation. clearly punishment isn't working. If people were taught to be bad then, surely, they may be taught to be good again. There are two victims for every crime: The victim of the crime and the criminal himself. i can't even address that. i guess it depends on a lot of things. look, not that i think pedophiles should be let loose to abuse any child they can get their hands on, but most pedophiles were abused as children themselves. and what about drug offenses? who's the victim there? crime and punishment are extremely complicated issues, that everyone tends to view in black and white. maybe the liberal viewpoint could be better explained as "we don't view complex issues in terms of simple, ineffective solutions" or "if all we have is a hammer, we don't view a bolt as a nail, we get another tool."

the rest of this article wanders off into foreign policy (US good! rest of world bad!) and economic policy (obama's a socialist!), and i'm just not up to subjecting my brain to that.

What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden

garden, eden, adam, eve, justice, genesis, bible, ray, comfort, god, yhwh, humor
Ray Comfort's latest post brings up the standard fundamentalist explanation for death, suffering, disease and the general uncomfortableness of life: it's your fault. Oh, it's my fault, too, well, it's really Adam and Eve's fault, and, yeah, let's let Ray explain it:

When God made Adam and Eve He made them perfect. There was no disease, suffering, pain and death. When they rebelled against Him, He cursed them and the earth, and we now live in what is commonly called a "fallen creation."

See, Yhwh put a tree in the center of the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Actually, it was two trees. He also put the Tree of Life in the center of Garden of Eden. Now, being omnipotent, if he didn't want anyone to eat of the fruit of either of those Trees, he could have put them outside of the Garden of Eden, or put them on top of a mountain, or put a fence around them, but no, he just leaves the Trees right there where anyone can get at them.

Then, Yhwh puts two people, two completely innocent people, who have been alive all of one day, who have no concept of right or wrong, who have never seen or heard of death, in the Garden with the Trees. The Trees he didn't want these two people to touch. Then he told them they would die if they ate the fruit.

Did I mention Yhwh is supposed to be omniscient?

Yhwh: You can eat anything you want, but don't eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

Eve: Why not?

Yhwh: Because I'll fjwuieruthf you if you do.

Adam: What?

Yhwh: I will fjwuieruthf you if you eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

*Adam and Eve look at one another*

Eve: Ummm . . . what's fjwuieruthf?

Yhwh: You know, I'll fjwuieruthf you if you do it.

Eve (to Adam): You've been around twice as long as me, what's fjwuieruthf?

Adam (shrugs): I dunno. Maybe it's one of those furry things I haven't named yet?

Yhwh: Look, you eat that fruit and I'll fjwuieruthf you! End of discussion.

Eve: That fruit looks pretty tasty. What do you call it again?

Adam: Snorg.

Eve: Snorg? Really? Are you sure you don't like apple better?

Adam: What's wrong with snorg?

Eve: I let you have platypus.

Adam: I guess apple's okay.

Eve: Well, that apple looks pretty tasty, and we don't know that fjwuieruthf is bad. Maybe it's not bad at all.

Yhwh: I can assure you that fjwuieruthf is very bad. Very, very bad.

Adam: Yeah, but what is it?

Eve: Maybe you could fjwuieruthf something else in the Garden and then we could decide if fjwuieruthf is bad enough to make us not try the apple.

Yhwh: I can't fjwuieruthf anything! This is the Garden of Eden, nothing ever fjwuieruthfs!

Adam: So, wait, will you or won't you fjwuieruthf us? We're in the Garden. Why can we be fjwuieruthfed?

Eve: Screw this, I'm eating the apple.

There you have it, the fundamentalist version of justice.

Justice for Cheney

Check out this post by FireDogLake. The essence of it is, Dick Chency admitted to comitting war crimes on national television. We need to bring him to justice. This page lists the contact info for every Senator in the US. This one lists the contact info the Representatives. I am contacting them all with a simple message:

Dick Cheney comitted war crimes. He admitted it on national television. Bring him to justice.

I know you think you can't do anything about it. I know you think Darth Cheney is beyond justice, that he will never pay.

Only if you let it happen. If enough of us call for his head, we'll get it. Keep trying.