Hypocrisy: No one does it better than Christians / MotifakeAny veteran Christian-watcher knows that Christians are as prone to hypocrisy as anyone else. There’s just one tiny little problem with that: The founder of their religion clearly and unambiguously forbid his followers ever to be hypocritical. They cannot be hypocrites, at any time, or for any reason. Here are some of Jesus’ reported words on the matter:

You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Mt 7:5)

Or how can you say to your brother, “Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,” when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye. (Lk 6:42)

And that’s just for starters. There are several other injunctions against hypocrisy in the New Testament. It doesn’t take much effort to find them.

Yet — curiously — Christians appear to have no problem ignoring all of that. They think they’re entitled to be as hypocritical as they wish, any time they wish, and somehow they think their Jesus approves of it (even if his own reported words contradict that).

One of their justifications for being hypocritical is that people of other faiths, or of none, are sometimes hypocritical. But those folk aren’t under Jesus specific and explicit orders never to be hypocritical. Christians, on the other hand, are.

The latest example of some rather obvious Christian hypocrisy comes from the mouth of former pastor, Arkansas governor, and current presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Late last week he fumed about President Barack Obama speaking out in the wake of the Umpqua Community College shooting. His press release, as Mediaite explains, takes Obama to task for it (WebCite cached article):

Mike Huckabee issued a press release tonight, where he blasted President Obama for rushing to politicize the Oregon shooting without knowing the details of the tragedy.

“For this president to make a political pronouncement is at best premature and at worst ignorantly inflammatory,” Huckabee wrote. “Obama can shamelessly try and exploit any tragedy he wants, but it’s clear that gun free zones are sitting duck zones.”

Yes, Obama politicized the shooting. But a lot of people have commented on it, including politicians of every stripe, and a lot of those folks have used it to justify or press their political positions. Politicizing events is not new at all. In fact, it’s routine. So Huckabee’s point is well taken … but it has little value. He may as well have issued a press release saying that water is wet or the sky is blue.

Oh, and contrary to what Shucksabee suggested, Umpqua Community College — despite the Right-wing blustering — was not, in fact, a “gun free zone.” Oregon law allows conceal-carry permit holders to have guns on campus (cached).

But quite aside from his outright lie about the “gun free zone,” during a subsequent appearance on CNN, Shucksabee crossed the line into hypocrisy (cached)

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says the recent spate of mass shootings aren’t because of access to guns, but because of “sin and evil” in the world.…

“We have not so much a gun problem; we have a problem with sin and evil. This is an evil thing, when people kill another person,” Huckabee said. “Whether it’s a pressure cooker or whether it’s a gun, we’re dealing with people who are either deranged or they’re very focused because they want to kill people in the name of terrorism.”

Did you catch that? Shucksabee did precisely what he’d accused Obama of having done, and condemned him for: Using the shooting as a tool for his own purposes. In his case, he cited “sin” as a cause of the shooting, implying the solution is for people to stop “sinning” and (I guess) turn to his deity.

It’s really a form of what I’ve called “disaster theology,” in which religious leaders claim something awful happened because their deity was offended by humanity. Shucksabee and other religious resort to “disaster theology” (or in this case, “massacre theology”) all the time. In a lot of cases it’s truly disgusting, such as when Marion “Pat” Robertson and his late pal Jerry Falwell blamed gays, pagans, abortion doctors, the ACLU and others for the September 11, 2001 attacks (cached).

Look, I get that the guy is running for president and he’s looking for any and all avenues he can use to attack the incumbent. That comes with the territory and is expected. But it’s not good for a Christian — and an ex-pastor at that! — to so openly flaunt his violation of Jesus’ teachings against hypocrisy. Yes, it’s unfair that non-Christians are (seemingly) allowed to be hypocrites while Christians aren’t. But those are the terms of their religion. They picked it. It’s their religion. They should either abide by its teachings, or drop it altogether in favor of something else.

But perhaps worst of all: A former pastor has no fucking excuse whatever for having disobeyed Jesus … none. Not. A. Single. Fucking. One.

Photo credit: Motifake.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

Faithful unto Death, by Herbert SchmalzThis is my second post today which relates to Thursday’s massacre in Roseburg, OR. It’s been widely reported, based on this CNN story, that the shooter had specifically targeted Christians (WebCite cached article):

Stacy Boylan, the father of Anastasia Boylan, who was wounded, said she told him the gunman singled out Christians.

She said the gunman entered her classroom firing, told the professor teaching the class, “I’ve been waiting to do this for years,” and shot him point blank, Stacy Boylan said.

While reloading his handgun, the man ordered the students to stand up and asked whether they were Christians, Boylan told her family.

“And they would stand up, and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you’re going to see God in just about one second,'” Stacy Boylan told CNN, relaying his daughter’s account. “And then he shot and killed them.”

From there, this martyrdom tale, spread by mindless mass media repetition, swept through the American Right like wildfire. In turn it triggered all sorts of things, such as a call to arms to defend Christendom, as I blogged earlier today.

But I had my suspicions about this. First of all, it’s just too fucking convenient, in light of Christianity’s delusional persecution complex. Christians are convinced there’s an effort underway to kill them all off and wipe Christianity off the face of the earth … and a lot of them actually think it could happen at any moment. For them, this tale is kind of a precursor to what they already think is just around the corner.

Second, it was reported not by an eyewitness to the massacre, but by someone who’d heard it second-hand. That, all by itself, ought to have raised reporters’ concerns and forced them to look for confirmation. But apparently this wasn’t done. At least, CNN hadn’t confirmed it … and other media outlets just ran with what they’d published.

It turns out I’d been right to question this martyrdom story. It might not be true after all. The Oregonian reports that another second-hand account says something a bit different (cached):

McGowan told family members that the gunman didn’t specifically target Christians but asked them about faith. The shooter, apparently planning to die during the massacre, told students: “I’ll see you soon” or “I’ll meet you soon.”

McGowan’s mother, Stephanie Salas, shared her son’s account Friday. The teenager, one of triplet boys, was shot in the right hand and released from Mercy Medical Center in Roseburg.…

“The shooter would call a person: ‘You, stand up,'” Salas said, recalling what her son told her. “And then he would ask them if they were a Christian, knew God, or had religion. And it wasn’t like it was stated on TV. It wasn’t about that he was just trying to pinpoint Christians, no.”

The shooter would tell them it wouldn’t hurt.

“And then he would shoot them,” she said.

McGowan told his mom he kept his head down among students crouched in the middle of the classroom, didn’t move and just tried to avoid looking at Harper-Mercer.

Now, let me be clear: I also am a bit suspicious about this second account, since as with the original version from CNN, it comes from a secondary source. So I can’t be much surer of it than the first account. But with that said, it’s a more nuanced version of a similar story, in that the killer asked his intended victims about their religion. It just doesn’t paint him to be as starkly anti-Christian.

What I can say about this is that a similar martyrdom tale had emerged from the Columbine massacre … but it turned out to be mythical, an altered version of what investigators determined had actually happened.

What really happened in that classroom at Umpqua Community College will take time to learn. Is it possible that the killer was, really, an anti-Christian crusader trying to slaughter each Christian in he came across? I suppose it might be. I certainly can’t rule it out, yet. Still, attacks of that sort, in the US, are unprecedented. At least, I’ve never heard of one. It’s just not something that happens. Given that Christians are known to have manufactured martyrdom stories in order to rationalize their paranoid delusions (cached), and there are conflicting accounts of what happened on Thursday, I’m going to need to be convinced.

I’ll close by saying that I get that the Roseburg community has been traumatized. The originator of the martyrdom story may not have intended to lie; perhaps he faithfully relayed what he’d been told, and that account had been given him by a shooting victim who was still in shock. It may well be that no one so far has intentionally lied about what happened. But with that said, as information is gathered, it’s important for everyone to focus on what’s discovered, and to winnow away anything that might not turn out to be true. Let’s not let a Columbine-style urban legend of martyrdom grow if the facts don’t actually support such a story. I’m sure it may pain Christians to have to admit another of their persecution stories isn’t true … assuming it comes to that … but too fucking bad. They should do so anyway. They’re not entitled to tell false stories just because those stories fit the delusional psychopathology of their religion.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

jesus-with-rifle-thumbNote: My next blog post addresses a point in this one.

America’s Christians have had enough, it seems, of not being allowed to force their dour metaphysics on the entire country, and they’re tired of terrorists and criminals insolently daring to attack them (as though no one else ever gets attacked). So they’ve decided to arm themselves and take the fight to save their Jesus to the streets! I have two such stories for you:

First, a bunch of angry Neocrusaders plan to show up — some packing heat! — at mosques around the country (as Raw Story explains) to show those horrific Muslim types who’s really in charge (WebCite cached article):

Anti-Muslim conservative groups have planned at least 20 rallies this month at mosques and other sites across the Unites States in coming days.

Imagine 2050 reported [cached] this week that a Facebook group [cached] called Global Rally for Humanity had put out a call for anti-Muslim demonstrations in “every country at every Mosque.”…

According to Imagine 2050, at least 20 rallies had already been planned for Oct. 9 and Oct. 10. Some of the organizers have encouraged demonstrators to show up armed, while others urged participants not to bring weapons.

An event in Dearborn, Michigan was billed as an “OPEN CARRY anti-mosque pro-AMERICA rally on 10/10!!”

I’m not sure what the point of this is, other than simple, raw intimidation. Yeah, that’s sure to make those insolent folk want not to be Muslims any more and convert en masse to Christianity! I guess. I mean, what else is a show of force good for? Wouldn’t you want to convert immediately if you saw a bunch of armed Christian ex-military marching around your mosque? </sarcasm>

Next, according to The Tennesseean, Tenneessee’s lieutenant governor Ron Ramsey declared, in the wake of the Roseburg, OR massacre (cached), that it’s time for godly Christians to arm themselves or be slaughtered (cached):

Ramsey, R-Blountville, made those remarks in a Facebook post Friday, one day after a shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., left 10 people dead. The suspect, 26-year-old Chris Harper Mercer, reportedly asked victims to name their religious affiliation during the massacre.

In his Facebook post, Ramsey links to a New York Post article with the headline “Oregon gunman singled out Christians during rampage.” Ramsey groups the Oregon shooting with other recent mass shootings in the nation. “Whether the perpetrators are motivated by aggressive secularism, jihadist extremism or racial supremacy, their targets remain the same: Christians and defenders of the West,” Ramsey said.

You can read Ramsey’s Facebook post for yourself (cached). Ramsey, you may recall, has previously declared that Muslims don’t have any religious freedom in the US … but Christians (conveniently for him!) do.

What all of these folk forget are three very important things: First, while Islamist terror groups like ISIS/ISIL/IS and al-Qaeda certainly have gone after Christians, they also target other Muslims who don’t belong to the same wing of the same sect of Islam as they do. In fact, by most counts, Islamofascists have killed far more Muslims than anyone else.

Second, these Neocrusaders’ focus solely on Islam as the supposed sole source of terrorism in the world purposely ignores all the Right-wing and even Christian terror that takes place, even within the US! Yes, folks, it’s true: There are Christian terrorists … and for all you know, they could be your neighbors! Where’s the outrage about that? Why haven’t atheists showed up, armed to the teeth, to protest at churches? (Answer: They haven’t, and as far as I know aren’t likely ever to.)

Third, while reports say the Roseburg killer specifically went after Christians, his motives actually are as clear as mud (cached). He’d sympathized with the Catholic/Irish-nationalist IRA, for example, and had described himself as spiritual but not religious, which of course means he was in fact religious, and not some antitheist crusader[*]. What’s known about him is really all over the map, right now. It’s possible his intentions may never be discerned. At the moment, the most one can say about him with any certainty is that he was a criminal, a murderous sociopath … and that’s it.

Yet, even if it could be proven that he was a anti-Christian militant out to slaughter every Christian on the planet, he’s still the only American who’s espoused such a philosophy. That’s right: The only one! For Ramsey to tell his fellow Christians to arm themselves because there’s now some horrid campaign underway to kill them all — based solely on this one event perpetrated by one guy — is fucking ridiculous.

Yes, folks, the paranoid sanctimonious rage runs deep with these people. Watch out! These are good Christians who’ve decided enough is enough with all the “turn the other cheek” bullshit that their deity and founder of their religion had taught them. They’re not taking crap from anyone any more! They’re in charge again, and don’t you fucking forget it!

[*] The picture of the Roseburg, OR shooter just got murkier. It turns out that he may not have specifically targeted Christians, after all! See my next blog post for more.

Photo credit: Jordon Cooper, via Flickr.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

Apostolic Nunciature Washington DCWhen the media initially reported that Pope Francis had met the gay-hating Religious Right aspiring martyr Kim Davis, clerk of Rowan Cty, KY, while he was in Washington last week (WebCite cached article), I admit having been skeptical. At first, only she and her people (i.e. the Christofascist outfit called Liberty Counsel, led by her attorney Mat Staver) had made this claim. The Vatican and its nunciature (aka embassy) initially wouldn’t confirm or deny it. This was just the sort of thing Staver and his cadre might try to cook up in an effort to make their client appear saintly. So I was suspicious.

My skepticism was proven wrong when they confirmed a meeting took place, but said nothing about its nature (cached). That seemed pretty odd, since Ms Davis and Staver had painted a rather rosy picture of how the Pope had told her to soldier on for Jesus in her crusade against marriage in her county, because gays. After continued questions, the Pope’s people finally had to say more about it. And what they did say, as the New York Times reports, didn’t exactly match Ms Davis’ contention (cached):

Pope Francis’ encounter with Kim Davis last week in Washington, which was interpreted by many as a subtle intervention in the United States’ same-sex marriage debate, was part of a series of meetings with dozens of guests and did not amount to an endorsement of her views, the Vatican said on Friday.

The church distanced itself on Friday from the case of Ms. Davis, the Rowan County, Ky., clerk who defied a judge’s order and refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It said “the only real audience” Francis gave in Washington was to a former student of his.

The Times hosts a copy of the Vatican’s statement (cached), which says, among other things:

The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.

What’s odd about this is that the one personal audience the Pope’s office admits occurred in Washington wasn’t just with any old former student of his. This person, the Times explains, was gay, and he’d brought his long-time partner along:

Contacted by phone, a former student of Francis, Yayo Grassi, said he had been granted a meeting with the pope. Mr. Grassi is an openly gay man living in Washington, and he said he had been accompanied by his partner of 19 years, Iwan Bagus, as well as four friends.

CNN has also reported on this part of the story (cached). I find it incredibly odd that Pope Francis would have arranged his own meeting with a former student who was gay, on the one hand, yet also met with — and supposedly encouraged — an anti-gay crusader for Jesus on the other. It all seems improbable on its face.

A possible explanation for this incongruity may lie in a report by a LGBT advocacy group, the New Civil Rights Movement, with new details on how Ms Davis’s meeting was arranged (cached):

The New Civil Rights Movement has learned through a source within the Apostolic Nunciature, the Vatican embassy, that Kim Davis’ meeting with the Pope was arranged – contrary to theories espoused in the media – by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The USCCB is led by President Joseph E. Kurtz, the Archbishop of Louisville, in Davis’ home state of Kentucky, and by the Archdiocese of Washington led by Cardinal Donald Wuerl. Both institutions have actively opposed same-sex marriage. In 2009, Cardinal Wuerl signed the Manhattan Declaration, an ecumenical statement calling on Evangelical, Orthodox, and Catholic Christians to defy laws permitting same-sex marriage and other issues they claim challenge their religious freedom.

The USCCB has ties to organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center, including the Family Research Council and the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM).

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the papal nuncio (aka ambassador) to the US is, according to some reports, a conservative within the hierarchy who’d participated in an anti-gay-marriage rally in Washington earlier this year (cached). As nuncio, Viganò very well could have arranged to insert Ms Davis and her goofy hick husband into a receiving line for the Pope, and possibly have done it with only a few people aware of who she really was. In other words, Viganò may well have blindsided his own boss, in the name of pushing an anti-gay crusade and promoting Ms Davis’s desired martyrdom, at the behest of the very-conservative American bishops.

I haven’t seen any other reports definitely linking this strange meeting with the USCCB. But other outlets, such as The Atlantic, have mentioned oddly cagey comments by Archbishop Kurtz (cached):

Joseph Kurtz, the archbishop of Louisville, Kentucky, and the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, wouldn’t comment on the meeting itself and how it came about, noting that he stayed about a mile away from the nunciature where Pope Francis stayed during his visit to D.C. But “I can comment on the fact that in Kentucky, I had said that I’m not a lawyer or a politician, but I had certainly hoped that room could be made for people of conscience,” he said on Wednesday. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was the primary coordinator of the pope’s schedule during his visit to the United States.

The more I read about this, the more I smell a rat. And that rat stinks like episcopal incense.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

Jesus Facepalm: He gave up too so please stop this foolishness (Demotivators; defunct)Honestly, although I’ve posted many stories along these lines, it brings me no joy to do so. It’s not as though I like heaping derision on people like the one I’m about to mention. But at the same time, the topic I’m addressing here isn’t something that can be ignored. You see, Christians love to say that morality comes only from belief in God, and more specifically, from their God. They say that the more people believe in their God, the better off everyone will be, because everyone will be morally upright. Religious Rightists in particular often demand that Americans turn to God (or return to God) in order to alleviate all of society’s ills.

The problem with this sort of thinking is that it’s just not fucking true! Believers in deities, which includes Christians, are not — as it turns out — any more or less moral than any other segment of the population. Yet, they keep on bellyaching that more Americans need to be Christian, usually their own particular variety of Christian, as though this reality weren’t the case. And they use their assertion of moral superiority in order to rationalize imposing their religion on everyone.

Hence, when notable examples that run contrary to this trope come up, I must mention them. Because they’re object lessons in the reality of both religion and human nature that shouldn’t be ignored, merely because they’re inconvenient.

The latest politician-crusader for Jesus who turned out not to be very morally upright after all, as the Indianapolis Star reports, is Judson McMillin, floor leader of the Indiana House (WebCite cached article):

Rep. Jud McMillin, a rising star in the state’s Republican Party, abruptly resigned Tuesday.

The Indianapolis Star has learned that the surprise resignation came after a sexually explicit video was sent via text message from McMillin’s cellphone. It’s unclear who sent the text or how broadly it was distributed.

The Brookville Republican sent a separate text message apologizing to his contacts for “anything offensive” they may have received after he said he lost control of his cellphone.

McMillin claimed his cellphone had been stolen in Canada. But it remains unclear if it actually had been stolen, or who sent out the video in the first place.

The reason this is significant is that McMillin was a chief among the Indiana legislators who’d campaigned to legalize discrimination against gays and others, in the name of “religious liberty,” earlier this year. He did this because, apparently, the Christians of Indiana were being ruthlessly oppressed by gays. Or something.

As the Star mentions, though, this sexting scandal shouldn’t really have been a surprise:

In 2005, his career as an assistant county prosecutor in Ohio came to an end amid questions about his sexual conduct. He admitted to a relationship with the complainant in a domestic violence case he was prosecuting, but he insisted the relationship began after he stepped off the case, according to the Dayton Daily News. He resigned a week after he stopped working on the case.

As something of a counterpoint, the Star article closes by mentioning that another Indiana legislator, this one a Democrat, was also involved in a sexting scandal. Which brings me around to my original point: Christians, including outspoken crusading Christians, aren’t any more morally upright than any other kind of person. They have the same impulses as everyone else. And their religious beliefs simply aren’t sufficient to change them.

Which brings me to a corollary point to consider: If being a Christian isn’t enough to make one change one’s behavior, then really, what value can it have? How truly “divine” can it be, if it carries no power to change people for the better? If moral behavior is something people need to work on, regardless of whether or not they’re Christian, then does being Christian really matter, where morality is concerned? Where, exactly, is the connection between Christianity and morality, if Christians are not — as seems to be the case — any more moral than any other type of human being?

If Christians were honest with themselves and everyone else, they’d admit being troubled by this. They’d admit their beliefs don’t make them morally superior. And they’d stop telling everyone else that they’re immoral because they’re not Christians. Because all those things are lies — and they fucking well know it, even if they won’t admit it.

Photo credit: Demotivators (defunct).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

Red Sox logo (upside-down to show their miserable performance and crazed management)Sorry, folks. This is yet another off-topic post about the Red Sox, the team I followed for years but which has crumbled into oblivion, as far as I’m concerned.

This weekend, the Red Sox achieved a new high in low. And no, I’m not referring to their likely second consecutive and thrice-in-four-years last-place finish. Although that’s bad enough, I’m not referring to their lackadaisical play on the field. No, I’m referring to their continued shabby treatment of their TV play-by-play announcer, Don Orsillo. It’s bad enough they blamed him — not the horror that is the team itself — for lousy ratings and decided to let him go. That, all by itself, is ridiculous beyond words. I’m also not referring to how they asked Orsillo to lie for them after word of his firing leaked (WebCite cached link).

Both of those moves were idiotic and insulting, but right now I’m referring to yet another move which was even more insulting and childish. The Springfield, MA Republican tells the sad story of how the Sox have kept up their campaign of retribution against Orsillo (cached):

On Sunday, the Red Sox honored NESN play-by-play announcer Don Orsillo in his final game at Fenway Park with a video tribute at the park.

NESN, which did not renew Orsillo’s contract for next season, did not air the tribute on the broadcast, angering a fanbase that has already been vocal about the dismissal of Orsillo.

On Monday, NESN released a statement indicating it plans to air its own tribute to Orsillo for the final game of the season on Sunday.

NESN offered no reason why this tribute was an either/or thing; i.e. they could either play it at Fenway or air it on NESN, but not both. At this point, I can only conclude that Orsillo must have royally pissed someone off at NESN or in Sox management. There can’t really be any other explanation for the nasty way they’ve treated him. Not only did they knock the guy down, they proceeded to kick him while he was on the ground, then they kicked him some more. Yeah, the Red Sox management are a class act, all right.

It’s possible NESN will air something during Orsillo’s last broadcast with them this coming Sunday, but as things stand, we’ll never know if they’d actually planned it or if it will have merely been a reaction to yet another scandalous story.

I blame Tom Werner, Red Sox chairman, who heads its media operations (which includes NESN, in which the Sox are by far the majority owner). His inability to comprehend how baseball works has been obvious since Terry Francona revealed he’d demanded the Sox win their games “in more exciting fashion” (cached). His disclosed excuse for letting Orsillo go … which had to be dragged out of him after several days of fan outrage … was that he wanted to “re-energize the broadcasts” (cached). Seriously!? What the fuck does that even mean? Werner doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing. He has no damned idea what’s wrong with the team he helps run.

The real problem with the Red Sox is on the field. At the moment, that’s best personified by a deadweight slug by the name of Hanley Ramirez. He’s been useless since the day he arrived and hasn’t gotten any better. The Sox decided to send him home even before the season’s over (cached), because they have no idea what the hell to do with him and he has no interest in playing. They’re paying a piece of shit tens of millions of dollars to wander around in the field and swing away at every pitch that goes by him … and they don’t even care that all of it’s being wasted. On the other hand, they do seem to care that Don Orsillo somehow isn’t “energetic” enough. Fuck that.

Photo credit: Based on Red Sox logo.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

'Veracicat has checked your facts and is not impressed with your lies' / PsiCop graphic, based on http://www.quitor.com/cat-with-glasses.htmlKim Davis, the anti-gay-marriage county clerk from Kentucky, having contrived to martyr herself is still angling for a second career as a Christianist pundit/lecturer/author. Toward that end, as Raw Story explains, she had an interview on (where the fuck else?) Fox News, with Megyn Kelly (WebCite cached article):

“When the legal challenges ended up not going in your favor, many people have asked, why not just resign at that point?” Kelly asked.

“If I resign I lose my voice,” Davis replied.

Thus, we see why Ms Davis has remained both defiant and on the job: She doesn’t want to lose the spotlight. It’s the only way she can spread her gospel of anti-gay hatred.

While this is quite a revelation … and it demonstrates how truly selfish she’s being … that’s not the part of her interview I’m most concerned about. There’s another little snippet (emphasis mine):

“It has been about upholding the word of God and how God defined marriage from the very beginning of time,” [Davis] insisted.

Please take note of this. It’s a commonly-repeated Christianist canard that God has “always” defined marriage as only “one-man-&-one-woman.” They love to say it over and over and over again.

There’s just one tiny little problem with it: If you look at their own scripture, you easily see that it’s not fucking true!

You see, as I noted long ago, marriage in the Bible comes in more than one form. The following Biblical figures all had marriages decidedly not of the one-man-&-one-woman variety:

Abraham: Married Sarah (Gen 16:1), then took as additional wives Hagar (Gen 16:3) and later Keturah (Gen 25:1).

Jacob: Married Leah (Gen 29:23), then Rachel (Gen 29:28), then Bilhah (Gen 30:4), then Zilpah (Gen 30:9).

Moses: Married Zipporah (Ex 2:21), then an unnamed Ethiopian woman (Num 12:1).

David: His named wives were Michal (1 Sam 18:27), Abigail (1 Sam 25:39), Ahinoam (1 Sam 25:43), Eglah, Abital, Haggith, & Maacah (2 Sam 3:3-5); and Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:24); there were an unknown number of other wives as well (2 Sam 5:13).

Solomon: Had 700 wives plus 300 concubines (1 Kg 11:3)

There are many more I could have listed, but didn’t. Yes, folks, Biblical marriage included polygamy and even concubinage! Granted, all of this is in the Old Testament, which some Christians will say doesn’t apply to them any more. (Except for the parts of it they say do still apply.) But really, whether it not it applies to them personally, cannot and will never make Ms Davis’s statement that “God defined marriage from the very beginning of time” as being only one-man-&-one-woman. It is, quite simply, flat-out untrue. A lie. A big fat fucking lie, in fact, since it’s so easy to verify as untrue! All one has to do is open up a fucking Bible and look at the words, fercryinoutloud.

However, as they like to say in infomercials, “But wait; there’s more!”

Looking at the New Testament, we see a pair of interesting admonitions. In 1 Tim 3:2 we see that overseers (aka bishops) must be men married to only one woman. Just ten verses later, in 1 Tim 3:12, we find that deacons also must be men married to one woman. The reason I call these instructions “interesting” is not just in what they say, but in what they don’t. That is, these requirements don’t apply to all Christians. They apply only to deacons and bishops. It’s quite possible, then, that some of the men in early Christian congregations — like many of the patriarchs and Hebrew monarchs before them — might have had multiple wives. The only problem for them was that they couldn’t be deacons or bishops. Otherwise they were Christians in good standing.

This, too, shows Ms Davis and her militant Christianist cohorts are lying when they said their deity had always declared marriage to be only of the one-man-&-one-woman sort. It’s just not true … not for the Biblical monarchs and patriarchs, and not even for the first few generations of Christians.

Now, that these presumably-devout Christians would lie for their Jesus is understandable, and par for the course. They lie for Jesus because they think they have to, because they should, and because they think they’ve got a special license to do so. They have no problem with it. But … I don’t understand why people in the media to whom they speak never summon the courage to challenge them on it. As I point out above, that’s remarkably easy to do. All that’s needed is a handy copy of the Bible to show them chapter-&-verse in which there were polygamous marriages, then ask them how they can say their God “always” defined marriage as one-man-&-one-woman. Megyn Kelly may work for the Religious Right’s house organ, but that isn’t really a justifiable excuse for her not to do her job. And it certainly can’t explain why journalists and interviewers from other outlets never issue the same challenge.

I’m happy to introduce Ms Davis to membership in my “lying liars for Jesus” club. She has lots of friends there already, so I know she’ll be happy. But she and her fellow Christofascists shouldn’t be granted carte blanche to lie as often as they want by the media. That’s got to fucking stop. Journalists need to grow up, and grow a pair, then do what they should. Period.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »