There'll Be Polygamy in the Streets

gay, marriage, traditional, polygamy, mormon, lds, fundamentalist,

About every other post from a "traditional marriage" blogger invokes the scare tactic of polygamy, and it didn't strike me why until last night, while I was doing the dishes. My reaction to this scare tactic has always been "and? how many people even want to do that, anyway?"

Then it hit me. A lot of the most "traditional marriage" bloggers are mormon, and like all religions, the LDS has skeletons in its closets and embarassing family members that show up at the most inconvenient of times. LDS's biggest skeleton is the polygamy practiced by the religion's founders, and still practiced today by fundamentalist splinter groups*.

I think the mormons fear that as soon as same sex marriage becomes legal nationwide, their spiritual cousins will come crawling out of the woodwork to demand that polygamy be made legal, which would be quite an embarrassing scene, indeed. It's like holding a family reunion, planning for a year to make everything perfect, and then Uncle Norman shows up, punches Grandpa Fred, pukes in the potato salad and passes out. Although in this particular analogy, Uncle Norman shows up with his 6 wives, the youngest his 14-year-old niece/cousin/half-sister.

I suggest that the next time a "traditional marriage" blogger invokes polygamy as a natural consequence of same sex marriage, you should ask them why they think that, and then end with "oh, yeah, mormons were into that at the beginning. I get it."

*LDS does not currently support polygamy, and has not for quite some time. By no means am I suggesting that mainstream mormons engage in polygamy, nor are they responsible for the abuses of fundamentalist splinter groups.

Thomas Sowell to 11 Year Old: Get Off My Lawn!

thomas sowell, education, science, evolution, economy,

Just when I think wingnuts can't get any lower, Thomas Sowell verbally assaults a little kid.

In short, schools are supposed to prepare children for the future, not give teachers opportunities for self-indulgences in the present. you know, like doing something other than reading aloud from a book. One of these self-indulgences was exemplified by a letter I received recently from a fifth-grader in the Sayre Elementary School in Lyon, Michigan. and he makes that child identifiable, too.

He said, "I have been assigned to ask a famous person a question about how he or she would solve a difficult problem." The problem was what to do about the economy. I'm not sure why anyone would ask this tool anything, but i thought it was kinda cute. but just being nice to a little kid is utterly beyond a wingnut, he has to make a point all over this kid.

notice to 11 year olds: stop reading this blog. srsly, this blog is not edited for family content. however, if you'd like to ask me questions as a famous person, go ahead. i'd be tremendously flattered. do try to keep your parents from suing me afterwards.

Instead, I replied to his parents: With American students consistently scoring near or at the bottom in international tests, I am repeatedly appalled by teachers who waste their students' time by assigning them to write to strangers, chosen only because those strangers' names have appeared in the media.

yes, that's why American students are falling behind: letter writing. it has nothing to do with constant standardized testing that forces teachers to teach to the test and nothing else* or the fact that a large portion of the country thinks the universe is 6,000 years old and our president may be the antichrist.

It is of course much easier-- and more "exciting," to use a word too many educators use because you can tell how effective an educator is by how boring they are. if they can put you to sleep in 30 seconds or less, they're the Beyonces of education-- to do cute little stuff like this read the preceeding seven words and ask yourself who might have benefited from a little more letter writing. than to take on the sober responsibility to develop in students both the knowledge and the ability to think that will enable them to form their own views on matters in both public and private life. in fifth graders, no less. i wonder when the last time was that Mr. Sowell was within 50' of an 11 year old. What earthly good would it do your son to know what economic policies I think should be followed, especially since what I think should be done will not have the slightest effect on what the government will in fact do? well, in your case, none. however, i think it wouldn't hurt the kid to hear a rational person's point of view. and we should we definitely teach children that unless they are currently in a position to effectuate change, they shouldn't even think of ways to do so. that's a valuable lesson to learn. And why should a fifth-grader be expected to deal with such questions that people with Ph.D.'s in economics have trouble wrestling with? that's right, we should prepare them to take on the sober responsibility to think (something), but they shouldn't think about hard stuff. that Mr. Sowell probably doesn't know anything about. yeah.

I'm guessing Mr. Sowell's house is the one that receives an unusual supply of toiletry items a little later in the month.

*My niece hasn't had science in a year and a half because of this. i've been teaching her science. i'm a legal secretary.

Could You Repeat That, Please?

christianity, christian, evangelical, marxism, socialism, war, homosexual, homophobia, bible, jesus,

Jan Markell, at Olive Tree Views, points out everything that is wrong with evangelical Christianity today, with no apparent awareness that she did so.

In many Bibles, all the words of Jesus are in red. There is nothing wrong with that. But something is wrong when Leftist Christians or so-called Christians want to mute the words of Paul and other writers and only follow Jesus' words. They call themselves "red-letter Christians."

They feel it is convenient to blot out the words of Paul on homosexuality and focus in on the good deeds Jesus talks about. Most are pacifists who reject an "eye for an eye" (Leviticus 24:19-20). They focus on Jesus' words about helping the poor, ministering to "the least of these" (Matthew 25:40), loving our enemies, etc. That justifies abandoning hundreds, even thousands of condemning verses in the Bible they choose to wish away. That makes homosexuality OK and war wrong! And remember, Paul and the others in the Bible represent Jesus' words. They were His spokesmen.

Srsly? Let's review, shall we? War: soldiers and innocents die, often horribly, and many are left injured and maimed. Children are permanently traumatized, left orphaned, do without food, medicine and education. Chaos reigns, leading to rape and other forms of violence. Fear abounds.

Homosexuality:

I suggest we send Ms. Markell to live with a gay couple for a week, then drop her off in a war zone. Maybe then she could see the difference. Unbelievable.

Wallis continues, "Jesus calls us to be merciful, which has strong implications for how we think about capital punishment. When Jesus tells us to love our enemies, He probably means we shouldn't kill them. Most important, if we take Jesus seriously, we will realize that meeting the needs of the poor is a primary responsibility for His followers. Ghandi once said that everybody in the world knows what Jesus was teaching in those verses except Christians." To your average evangelical, the words of Ghandi are meaningless.

Yeah, fuck Ghandi! What did he know? All his non violence- he could have been waging war!

As Mark Tooley of the Institute for Religion and Democracy writes, "These people only criticize the U.S. and Israel in its human rights critiques, while remaining largely silent about monstrous regimes. They focus on America's supposed mistreatment of Indians, about slavery, and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. But they will never talk about the Holocaust." You will also note they don't talk about the butchery of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong IL.

The "supposed" mistreatment of Indians? Does she perhaps mean the genocide committed against the native peoples of America? What is wrong with these people?

I'm starting to understand why people like Limbaugh and Beck are so attractive to these people, and it really scares me.

The Bible Says What, Now?

bible, translation, schafly, conservapedia, conservative,
Hat tip to PZ Myers for picking up on Conservapedia's rewriting of the bible to match their own principles.

Some commentors at Pharyngula think that Conservapedia is being spoofed. I think somebody actually read their bible and thought, "Oh, shit! I'm totally not doing what Jesus said. He said to give away your money and help the poor and sick- what the fuck am I going to do? I've got- I'll rewrite the bible!"

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible because that's not how one translates books, asshat which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]

Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias the fact that Jesus espouses liberalism every fifth word is a feature, not a bug, moran.

Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity Christianity: now with testicles!

Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3] i can't . . . the irony . . . it hurts!

Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

comrade: a person who shares in one's activities, occupation, etc.; companion, associate, or friend.

it's an accurate word as used in the bible. the above definition is the first definition, btw. i'd also like to know when "word", "peace" and "miracle" changed in meaning, and what the previous definitions were.

Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census um, the "casting of lots" in the bible isn't gambling in several instances, from what i remember, it referred to divination at least once. divination isn't gambling. and replacing "enroll" with "register"- why? does "enroll" have some alternate meaning in ConservaLand I am unaware of?

Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil. what? i don't even know what that means.

Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning where, where, where in the bible are there "Free Market Parables"? And Jesus said unto them: thou shalt charge what the market shall bear, even in the case of health care, because if poor people die of treatable illness, it's their own damn faults!

Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story ah, the adulteress story, in which Jesus tells an adulteress to go and sin no more. good of them to admit that forgiveness is a liberal trait.

Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels again, i have no fucking idea what they're getting at.

Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God." "Liberal Wordiness"? The new, revised Song of Solomon: Hey baby, let's fuck.

They really are serious about this, btw. Well, sort of. Clearly, Andy Schafly has no idea what is involved in translating ancient documents, as evidenced by his expectation that they can translate 4 verses an hour, from the original, every day for the next year, with no problem.

Diamond Jesus

classy

They really don't read their own book, do they?

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (NIV, Matthew 6:19-21)

The Difference Between Us

Reflections From a Murky Pond is a blog with a really cool name* and a really stupid post.

Below are nine points of comparison between Conservatives and Liberals in modern America. The nine points give a broad unrealistic view of the differences in outlook between Conservatives and Liberals.

If a Conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a Liberal doesn’t like guns, he feels that no one should have one.

I like guns just fine. In fact, I own a shotgun and a .22 rifle. I even know how to use them. However, living over here in reality, I know that gun violence is a huge problem in this country. There were 30,896 gun deaths in the US in 2006. Therefore, I have drawn the conclusion that a good portion of the people who currently have guns can't be trusted with them. And who the fuck needs an AK-47? You can't hunt with an AK-47 and it's only appropriate for home protection if you happen to be living on the Maginot Line. In 1940.

~*~

If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.

I'm a vegetarian, feel free. I regularly go to restaurants and eat pasta or salad while friends or family members eat steak. Have at it.

~*~
If a Conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
If a Liberal sees a foreign threat, he wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

I don't look at the world and see "enemies". I look at the world and see people. We are currently involved in two wars, one of which we had no business being in, the other one a repeat of Alexander the Great's one big embarrassment, so maybe seeing enemies everywhere you look isn't the way to go.

~*~
If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Liberal is homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect.

A friend of mine said to me, "I wouldn't mind heterosexuals so much if they would stop being all hetero in my face." Yeah. So, uh, could all the gays quit squicking jonolan out? It's rude.

~*~
If a Black or Hispanic is Conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
If a Black or Hispanic is Liberal, they see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

So, um, being conservative is automatically success? What? I can't even parse that. Yes, I think racism is endemic in this country, and we really need to do something about that. Other than victim blaming.
~*~
If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
If a Liberal is down-and-out, he wonders who is going to take care of him.

Welfare queens!
~*~
If a Conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
If a Liberal doesn’t like a talk show host, he demands that those they don’t like be shut down.

Yeah, I think people who incite murder and treason should shut the fuck up. Why do you hate America, jonolan? The terrorists have won.**

~*~
If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
If a Liberal is non-believer, he wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

Yes, that's right. I spend most of my time cataloguing my neighbor's books to remove any mention of god and listening at windows in an attempt to report people to The FuhrerPresident Obama for praying.

~*~
If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
If a Liberal decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.

It's your own fault if you're poor and can't afford health insurance, and you deserve to die horribly for the mistakes you've made.

Yes, these comparisons are sarcastic and funny – at least to some people if you're not laughing, it's because you've got no sense of humor, not because I said something that wasn't funny– they’re also disturbingly true. you tell yourself that. It largely stems from Conservatives adhering to the American principles of self-determinism and personal responsibility while the Liberals adhere to the ideologies of Statism and Collectivism. Conservatives are real Americans, Liberals are Nazi/Commie/muslims.




*Seriously, I'm a little jealous

**Now I see why Republicans do that. It's fun!

The Point is 6 Miles That Way

abortion, prochoice, prolife, poverty,

The pro-life movie starring Christian songstress Rebecca St. James in her first leading role made its world premiere last Friday at the Great Boston Christian Film Festival.

“Sarah’s Choice,” which will hit theaters Nov. 17, centers on the life of Sarah Collins (St. James), a young junior account executive at a major advertising agency who becomes pregnant while climbing the ladder of success.

Though her friends and co-workers insist that she has the right to choose a path that offers a successful career and seemingly unlimited material rewards, Collins comes to consider another choice following a series of nightly visions and the words of a mysterious stranger.

Wow. Talk about missing the point. Do prolifers really think that most abortions are obtained by beautiful, rich white women who don't want to miss out on being even more rich? Really?

According to the Guttmacher Institute:

• About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.

• The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women)

• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner

So, to summarize, most abortions are obtained by poor women who already have a child, who recognize that they cannot afford (another) child.

I say we produce a realistic movie about abortion. In this movie, we will follow a poor, young woman with a child through their life of crushing poverty. We will watch as our heroine works two jobs to support her children, and still can't make ends meet. We will follow her through a string of low-paying, dead-end jobs, her trips from one ill-maintained, possibly dangerous apartment to the next, as she does without food so her children can eat less than they'd like. We'll watch her as she freezes in the winter without a coat while her children wear ill-fitting hand me downs. We'll watch the family on Christmas morning as her children open their one present each from a charity.

It'll be heartwarming, I'm sure.