They Sell Burgers, You Know

You made Jesus facepalm

Ah, McDonalds. Home of my favorite french fries, though only when they're right out of the fryer, so hot you can hardly eat them. OM NOM NOM NOM.

Hmm. Maybe this cutting back on salt thing isn't so good for me.

Anyway, because a burger is never just a burger and everything is an assault on someone's religious beliefs, Red Cardigan is deeply offended by a McDonald's ad that runs in France in which gay people are being, well, people. Red Cardigan does not live in France. She lives in the United States, like me. Personally, I don't care if McDonalds uses tentacle porn (go ahead, search that, I dare you) to advertise its products in France, because I don't live there. But not Red Cardigan. Like any good Christian, she's deeply offended by something that doesn't affect her at all.

I realize that a certain segment of the population suffers from same-sex attraction. But the push to normalize homosexual activity, to force a narrative that insists that homosexual acts are normal and that the attraction is a good thing, is an attempt to make positive and good what is contrary to the moral law and to the teachings of many mainstream religions, Catholicism among them.

And that has what to do with burgers? Hey, guess what, gay people buy burgers, too! I know, it's astounding. It's almost like those homosekshuals are people, too. Huh.

France, of course, doesn't have to worry that much about their (largely) nominally Catholic population having any objection to this ad. France's growing Islamic population, however, might, since Islam also views homosexual acts as sinful. At present, the Islamic population in France is not inconsiderable, accounting for about six percent of France's total population.

"I'll tell the Muslims! You'll see!" has to be the weirdest threat from an American Christian, but you see it all the time these days. "We're reasonable, but those guys? Fucking crazy. You do not want me to get them involved."

In America, of course, McDonald's is marketed as a family-friendly, child-welcoming restaurant. A commercial winking at the idea of a father's cluelessness regarding his homosexual teenage son's dating adventures would probably not fly here, given McDonald's market in this country. But that's one of the things I hate about huge multinational corporations--they can play the game of being all things to all people, and show ads with mothers, fathers, and small children in this country, and gay-friendly ads France, without apparently seeing any contradiction between the two.

*headdesk* There is no contradiction, honey. You see, McDonalds isn't selling morality or religion. They sell fast food. In the United States, fast food is automatically considered family fair, being quick and cheap, so of course the advertising is family friendly. France, however, has a different culture, therefore McDonalds' advertising in France is different. That's right, the entire world is not exactly the same. I bet that ad was even in French. Wow! We'll wait while you mull that one over.

McDonald's got into trouble two years ago over their support of a gay organization; pro-family groups organized a boycott at the time. In the present economy, some families have seen McDonald's as an inexpensive, family-friendly restaurant to take the kids to for an occasional treat--but this ad in France may make some people think twice about that choice.

I'm getting pretty tired of multinational corporations trying to override the religious and moral views of huge numbers of people so they can look trendy while selling fat-laden unhealthy food or other wasteful and unnecessary products. You might say I'm not lovin' it.

If by "got into trouble" you mean "nobody noticed our little hissy fit and McDonalds continued to post profits", then yes. But, no, McDonalds isn't trying to "override the religious and moral views" of anyone. They are selling burgers. An ad featuring a gay person doesn't override anything, it simply acknowledges that gay people exist and buy fast food. Which they do. Welcome to reality.

pic link

O_o

I think the people at Ministering Deliverance are serious. I'd like for them to be a bunch of Poes poe'ing each other, but I think they really believe what they say. Which is alarming to say the least.

hi everyone i just wanna ask a question.

i have a demon called beast that was put there before i was born. the demon says that only my father has the authority to cast it out. the problem is, my father does not believe in Jesus and wont cast it out! what can i do? will i ever be able to get rid of this demon? is there another way?

Ummm . . . I . . . . yeah. See, hearing voices isn't really a good sign. You're pretty much looking at brain tumors, seizures or schizophrenia. You really need to see a doctor, today.

Sadly, that advice never comes up.

Typically, demons are liars. Something to file away in your heart.

I've encountered demons who tell me the same thing, that my father/mother gave them permission to abide, and only they have the authority to make them leave. It's simply not true - maybe when I was a child, but as an adult, surrendered wholly to Christ, there is a HIGHER authority, and the demons KNOW THIS.

You need to repent of any agreement made on your behalf by your parents, renounce it, and break the authority that the demon is holding onto.

There are a lot of gifted ministers here who can help you figure out the details - everyone is different, but one thing that NEVER changes is WHO is in charge, and that EVERY single knee will bow to Him. His authority superscedes all other. Period.

I suppose schizophrenia or epilepsy left untreated for a short period of time might be relatively safe, in that it probably won't progress much, but untreated brain tumors? That'll just keep growing. Inside your skull. There's only so much room.

I'm especially concerned in that this the next posting from the OP's profile:

hi jay jay this is charlie
we ar ok daron is hapy cos he got a presont at crismus and i got won to! nataleys dad wil met yo but he wont let yo tawlk bout jesus cos he no lik him and he dont beleve in him so wont want to help nataley and wil larf at her and she wil get sad agan.
yo ar come her soon? i very exsited to see yo!

That can't be good. Irresponsibility, thy name is fundamentalism.

O_o

*edited to put blockquoting in the right place*

Pro Life- Pro Sinful, Evil Life

This whole post on developing love and compassion in the home is a mess of wtf?!*, but at least I now understand why the same people who weep over the loss of a blastocyst don't really care about babies once they are born. It's because babies are pure evil, sinners to the core before they ever open their eyes for the first time.

They (we/I) have a prime opportunity to learn these things before they have as many of the distractions, frustrations, business, and weariness that naturally comes when two sinners are united in Holy matrimony, and especially when they birth more sinners who have not yet received the grace of God.

[emphasis added]

Silly, wicked atheist that I am, I look at a baby and think BAYBEEEEEE!!!!, not "sinner!" These people freak me the fuck out.

pic link

*Why would you need to "develop" love and compassion in your home? Shouldn't you just have it? I understand teaching children to empathize and treat others with kindness and respect, but love and compassion shouldn't be something you have to work at, those should already be in your relationship with your children from the start.

The First Amendment: A Review

I'm not sure why people have so much trouble understanding the free speech portion of the First Amendment. It's not long or complicated. In fact, the entire amendment is short and quite simply stated.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do you see anything in there that protects anyone from the consequences of their speech? No, you don't. You are more than welcome to say any horrible, shocking, racist, sexist, otherwise bigoted crap you want to say, but you are in no way protected from my reaction to what you said. I am more than welcome to tell my boss exactly what I think of him- and he is equally welcome to fire me for doing so.

Or, as my mother used to say, you have the ability and the right to shove a potato chip up your nose, that doesn't make it a good idea. (I didn't realize until much later in life that my mother made up a lot of her "old sayings" on the spot.) Sure, John Stossel, you can announce to the world that you think people should be allowed to engage in institutionalized racism, and I have to right to call you a bigoted spleenweasel because of it.

At the time, racism was so pervasive that such an intrusive law may have been a good thing. But, as a libertarian, I say: Individuals should be surrounded by a sphere of privacy where government does not intrude. Part of the Civil Rights Act violates freedom of association. That's why I told Fox's Megyn Kelly, "It's time now to repeal that part of the law."

You can't say that in America?

Sure you can, asshat. Were you arrested for saying that? Were you thrown in prison? Were you executed? Clearly not. Clearly, you still have a platform from which to spew your stupidity. So, can you say that in America? Yes. Is it a good idea? Probably not. Those are two entirely separate issues, however.

The First Amendment allows you to say what you wish, but you're on your own when it comes to deciding whether or not you should.

The Vietnam War Is Not the Example I Would Use

I'm beginning to think that pontificating on history should be like performing surgery: legal only with a great deal of training from accredited institutions. I say this because I am dumbfounded that anyone would use the Vietnam War as an example of virtue.

Dr. Tony Beam (Doctor of Ministry from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky) did just that.

General Omar Bradley, a hero of World War II once said, “America today is running on the momentum of a godly ancestry, and when that momentum runs down, God help America.” We were given an incredible gift by our Founding Fathers. They established this county on sound biblical principles while recognizing that all reasonable religious expressions should be allowed. They gave us a Constitutional Republic as our form of government. They inserted checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority and to curtail the power of the majority. It is a form of government that has experienced hundreds of peaceful transitions of power without violence.

Well, yes, slavery is a biblical principle. I will grant you that. Democracy, not so much. Um, you know, if you've actually read the Bible. Is there some special fundy version of the Bible in which Jesus preaches at length about the House of Representatives and the Executive Branch? Does it come right after he says to cut off food stamps for poor children and declares universal health care a tool of Satan?

I was going to snark on General Bradley because that quote sounds an awful lot like that momentum is all very white, but it sounds like he was a nice guy. Wow. He was literally born in a log cabin, which is so American, I have broken out in a flag-shaped rash. Although, given the time period, he could have been a nice, patriotic guy and totally racist. My grandfather was quite the progressive for his day and was still fairly racist. Anyway . . .

When the pilgrims came to America it took them twenty-three years to pay for their own passage. They were blown five hundred miles off course, missing Virginia and landing in Massachusetts. But when they finally stood on that rocky coast, they fell down to their knees, kissed the earth and wrote “We establish this state to the glory of God and the spread of the Christian religion.” Still, there are those who question the role of Christianity in the founding of this great country.

Ah, the Pilgrims. Yes, fleeing the religious tolerance of Holland, they were. Trust me on this one. No Pilgrim would consider Dr. Beam to be a Christian, nor would they have thought the group of Deists and Theists that actually founded the United States were Christian. Pilgrims =/= Founding Fathers.

The Constitution is a call to personal and collective responsibility. John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” The ability to protect our freedom does not lie in the might of the military but in the minds and morals of the American people. It is moral character based on the teaching of God’s Word that led Washington to endure the horror of Valley Forge and to cross the Delaware in the dead of night to attack an army far superior to his. That same character has led United States troops across the beach at Normandy, through the jungles of Southeast Asia, and across the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan.

I wonder what Mr. Adams thought about his colleague, Mr. Jefferson, who removed all reference to Jesus from his Bible. The "moral character" of the US led to the hopeless mess that was the Vietnam Conflict? (And don't get me started on Afghanistan and its lovely mountains. Perhaps you've heard of them? The Himalayas?) Blessed are the peacemakers, someone once said, and then half the world did war in his name. How perfectly odd.

The great leaders of our past were men of character whose belief in God bound them to ideals they were ready and willing to defend to the death.

Like slavery!

Our country is suffering from a host of problems

.

Damn religious right.

We find ourselves in a mysterious malaise not unlike that described during the Carter years.

LIBERALS! Seriously, the way these people talk about Carter, you'd think he was Stalin in disguise, deliberately sabotaging American . . . Americanness.

Extracting ourselves from this wilderness of uncertainly and doubt about the American dream will require the rediscovery of character…the kind of character that was present in the soldiers we honored on Memorial Day.

Okay, if you're not American, referencing the American Dream and soldiers and Memorial Day in the same sentence is criticism kryptonite for other Americans. As an American, I am legally required to start waving a flag around and sing our National Anthem and I cannot in any way evaluate any statement made from this point on.

Fuck it. France sounds tasty.

We need leaders who will give us something other than government to believe in. We can retake our ship of state and get it back on course for safer waters but only if we realize that the freedom we seek is not freedom from moral restraint. It is the freedom to pursue what is right.

Belief sucks! Wait, that's my line. Now I'm confused. And what part of feeding the poor and equal rights are morally unrestrained?

Character comes from morality, which flows out of our right relationship with God.

Actually, I would say that morality comes from character. I'm moral. Plenty more moral than every Christian who defended slavery and fought against interracial marriage, and maybe they did have a "right relationship" with your imaginary friend. Is it possible to have a wrong relationship with a fantasy?

Restoring America to a place that rightly defines and vigorously defends what is right means returning to the personal righteousness that comes from a personal relationship with God through Christ. Only as we are made holy by repenting of our sins and returning to God can we be made whole again.

Whole slaveowners invading countries for no good reason. Yay!

I'll Debate at the Vatican!

OMG! It's the symbol of peace and it's coming right at me!

Well, they're already banned Hitchens and Dawkins, and I'm an atheist, so . . . Hey, Pope! I like beautiful architecture and paintings! I'll come to Vatican City and debate you! (Or fly to Europe on your dime and run off to look at all the history. One or the other.)

The Vatican is planning a new initiative to reach out to atheists and agnostics in an attempt to improve the church's relationship with non-believers. Pope Benedict XVI has ordered officials to create a new foundation where atheists will be encouraged to meet and debate with some of the Catholic Church's top theologians.

The Vatican hopes to stage a series of debates in Paris next year. But militant non-believers hoping for a chance to set senior church figures straight about the existence of God are set to be disappointed: the church has warned that atheists with high public profiles such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens will not be invited.

Well, yeah, why would you want Dawkins or Hitchens? They're high profile, experienced debaters, each the author of published books and articles . . . no, wait, that's why you would want to debate them. Unless you knew you couldn't win against them.

But in an interview with the National Catholic Register, Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, made it clear he would not be willing to give a platform to certain prominent atheists.

The foundation, he said, would only be interested in "noble atheism or agnosticism, not the polemical kind – so not those atheists such as [Piergiorgio] Odifreddi in Italy, [Michel] Onfray in France, [Christopher] Hitchens and [Richard] Dawkins".

"Noble athiesm"? What does that mean? Hmmm . . . well, allowed for the fact that Ravasi probably said that in Italian, I'm going with "noble" means "accommodationist", as opposed to those "polemical" atheists who will actually debate you. Do you suppose we can convince the Archbishop that PZ Myers is the least polemical, most accommodating atheist of us all?

Such atheists, he added, only view the truth with "irony and sarcasm" and tend to "read religious texts like fundamentalists".

Oh, I see. An atheist would have to be well versed in all two thousand years of Catholic theology in order to properly debate a Catholic. Surely someone can give PZ a refresher course in Catholic weirdness. I suggest starting with purgatory.

pic link

Manly Virtues

It's easy to forget, as a woman, that the patriarchy puts as much pressure on men to adhere to a strictly defined, and ultimately crushing, gender role as it does on women. As difficult as it is for women to hold to a certain ideal of femininity, with its soft spoken, stupidly weak and dependent "perfection", it can't be any easier for the average man to be the character John Wayne portrayed in movie after movie. (Keeping in mind, of course, that not even John Wayne was John Wayne: off screen, he was Marion*.)

I am reminded of this by When Masculine Virtues Go Out of Fashion by Tom Hoffman.

The culture war begun in the sixties has, in large part, been won by the left. Nowhere is this clearer than in the feminization of men. The virtues of manhood which had been extolled and celebrated throughout the middle ages right up to the 1950s have been completely expunged from academia and pop culture. The baby boom generation was the last to be taught the values of rugged individualism, risk-taking, courage, bravery, loyalty, and reverence for tradition. John Wayne epitomized the rugged individual who was committed to fighting "the bad guy," but he was only one of a whole host of competing figures cut out of the same cloth. What happened?

Not even John Wayne was actually John Wayne, dude. That rugged individualist, with his risk-taking, courage, bravery, loyalty and reverence for tradition wasn't real**. That's not even a whole person. I mean, how does one live with a risk-taking individualist? What kind of father is that? I can't even imagine what hobbies that sort of person has, other than bear wrestling or sky diving. Sure, I bet the wrestling a bear while sky diving stories are great at first, but eventually you might want to discuss current events or just watch TV. It also completely excludes even the slightly disabled from being truly masculine. You better believe I would run off with Stephen Hawking and his sexy, sexy brain well before I would run off with some bear wrestling loyalist.

Today, the Boy Scouts are fighting the last battle in a lost cause. Any man who stands up to the "women's movement" is completely marginalized as a sexist and homophobe. These names have become just as stigmatizing as "racist" used to be. It is no wonder that women now are the majority of college graduates and are increasing their role in every institution from private enterprise to public service, including the military. Is this a healthy trend? The answer is clearly "no."

Um, no. The Boy Scouts are not viewed as homophobes for fighting feminism, they are viewed as homophobes for excluding homosexuals from their organization. By definition, bigoted. A rose is a rose is a rose and a bigoted rose is a bigoted rose is a bigoted rose. Wait, as stigmatizing as "racist" used to be? When did "racist" cease to be stigma- oh, right, since the Tea Party made it hip to be a white supremecist.

Edward Gibbon chronicles the increasing femininity of the Roman Empire in his six-volume work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He catalogues the progressive decadence that rendered the once-proud republic into spoils for barbarian hordes. The consuls in the early republic, who were warrior-generals adhering to a strict code of honor, gradually gave way to the backroom emperors who were no more than brazen criminals and thugs. It is the same script in all noble human enterprise: The fabric which bred success is torn apart by the complacency of the successful. When warfare is demonized as violence and negotiation is raised to an art, the end is near. Today, we are there.

Okay, two things. Wouldn't brazen criminals and thugs still be pretty darn close to the masculine ideal? They are certainly rugged individualist and risk takers (that practically defines violent criminals) and speaking in terms of the mafia, I'd also allow them courage, bravery, loyalty, and reverence for tradition as well. (It would have helped Mr. Hoffman to define what this ideal man is loyal to.)

Also, warfare good, peace bad! Killing people, including innocent noncombatants, is what real men do! Only mama's boys try talking it out, sparing human life in the process. He does realize that those "dead" guys in all those movies got up and walked away, right? And they say video games rot the mind.

Academia, with the help of the media, has labeled all reference to manly virtue as patriarchal, sexist, and homophobic. Womanly virtue, on the other hand, is extolled. Caring, compassion, sensitivity, and understanding are virtues meant to blur the distinction between good and evil and drown out the call of manly conscience to "do the right thing." Like a mother who refuses to see the evil in her son, the feminist professors cast all moral standards as relative and subjective.

Caring, compassion, sensitivity and understanding are bad. Their only purpose is to turn rugged individualists into sissies. Wow. Mr. Hoffman scares me. Also, maybe I'm just behind on the required reading (have you seen the Feminist Manifesto? It's huge!), but when did anyone declare loyalty and courage to be bad? Wait, we didn't?

Exit the cowboy and enter the mama's boy. Queen Herzeloyde would have no problem raising young Parzival in today's schools, as devoid of examples of manly virtue and rugged individualism as they are. All reference to the service of a higher calling -- to God and country -- has been replaced by the call to community service with the emphasis on care and compassion for the downtrodden.

Well, care and compassion for the downtrodden? We're just fucking doomed, aren't we? What kind of country will we be living in if we start treating the downtrodden with care and compassion instead of just rushing off to kill whatever brown people we hate this week?

Yeah, I know, a better one.

*John Wayne on John Wayne: "When I started, I knew I was no actor and I went to work on this Wayne thing," he once recalled. "It was as deliberate a projection as you'll ever see. I figured I needed a gimmick, so I dreamed up the drawl, the squint and a way of moving meant to suggest that I wasn't looking for trouble but would just as soon throw a bottle at your head as not. I practiced in front of a mirror."

**This is actually a pretty good description of Jägermonsters. I doubt this is what Mr. Hoffman has in mind.