Posts Tagged “christianist”
Quite some time ago I blogged about the phenomenon of pastors embracing guns and gun ownership as an expression of Christianity. And a few days ago I blogged about Christofascist Jerry Boykin’s claim that Jesus is going to return soon, armed with an automatic weapon. (He actually “checked it out,” you see, and is absolutely certain of it.)
Well, many Christians continue viewing their Jesus as a “patriot” like themselves, even if he was nothing like them at all. Let’s be honest … it’s difficult, if not impossible, to see how angry, maniacal gun-toters like Ted Nugent or Wayne LaPierre possibly bear any resemblance to the man who’s reported to have said things like “turn the other cheek” and “those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.”
It seems Kentucky’ Baptists are no exception. As the Louisville Courier-Journal reports, they love arming themselves to the teeth for Jesus (locally-cached article):
In an effort its spokesman has described as “outreach to rednecks,” the Kentucky Baptist Convention is leading “Second Amendment Celebrations,” where churches around the state give away guns as door prizes to lure in nonbelievers in hopes of converting them to Christ.
As many as 1,000 people are expected at the next one, on Thursday at Lone Oak Baptist Church in Paducah, where they will be given a free steak dinner and the chance to win one of 25 handguns, long guns and shotguns.
The goal is to “point people to Christ,” the church says in a flier. Chuck McAlister, an ex-pastor, master storyteller and former Outdoor Channel hunting show host who presides at the events as the Kentucky Baptist Convention’s team leader for evangelism, said 1,678 men made “professions of faith” at about 50 such events last year, most of them in Kentucky.
In Louisville, he said, more than 500 people showed up on a snowy January day for a gun giveaway at Highview Baptist Church, and 61 made decisions to seek salvation.
Lest anyone think this “packing heat for Jesus” movement is a localized phenomenon in Kentucky, it’s not. As CNN explains, a church in Troy, NY is giving away a gun for Jesus, too (WebCite cached article):
An upstate New York church is giving new meaning to the biblical passage, “My peace I give unto you.”
In this case, it’s a piece: an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.
Grace Baptist Church in Troy — about two and half hours north of Manhattan — is giving away the semi-automatic rifle as part of a special event honoring hunters and gun owners later this month. The church website entices gun lovers with the words “Win a Free AR-15″ followed by the New Testament line.
The holder of the winning ticket will receive an AR-15 modified for sale in New York state.…
In a letter to his congregation, Pastor John Koletas said: “Our country was built with the King James Bible and the gun.”
Sounds as though Koletas’s church is a member of the waning KJV-Only movement … which as I’ve explained previously, is based upon pure, unadulterated, 100% grade-A bullshit and lies. In any event, this giveaway has something of a political pedigree:
New York Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin, a Republican, will speak at the service.
The C-J article points out these (literally!) militant churches and their pastors have some critics within Christianity, but it doesn’t appear those critics are actually doing much of anything about it, other than to provide a few sound bites to the occasional reporter who happens to call looking for a comment. Not one of them is explaining to these pastors that Jesus was no warrior, that he didn’t want his followers brandishing firearms all over the place, and that what they’re doing is thoroughly and completely un-Christian. No, other Christians are quite happy to let their militant co-religionists run around, holding onto their dour, sanctimonious belligerence.
Photo credit: Counterlight’s Peculiars.
, chuck mcalister
, grace baptist church
, gun culture
, highview baptist church
, jesus with a gun
, john koletas
, kentucky baptist convention
, lone oak baptist church
, militant christian
, militant christianity
, militia movement
, new york
, packing heat for jesus
, paducah KY
, patriot movement
, paul chitwood
, second amendment
, second amendment celebration
, second amendment celebrations
, steve mclaughlin
, troy NY
, win a free ar-15
No Comments »
This is something that’s been making the rounds for a few days, but I’ve only just gotten around to blogging about it. I commented on it yesterday in a Delphi forum, and will use some of those remarks here.
A tendency of Christians is to project something of themselves onto Jesus Christ, the founder of their religion. This is understandable since projection is a common psychological phenomenon. Retired general, raging Neocrusader, and avowed Christofascist Jerry Boykin recently fell into this trap, when, as Right Wing Watch explains, he declared Jesus was a warrior, and had inspired the Second Amendment (WebCite cached article):
The Lord is a warrior and in Revelation 19 is [sic] says when he comes back, he’s coming back as what? A warrior. A might [sic] warrior leading a mighty army, riding a white horse with a blood-stained white robe … I believe that blood on that robe is the blood of his enemies ’cause he’s coming back as a warrior carrying a sword.
And I believe now — I’ve checked this out — I believe that sword he’ll be carrying when he comes back is an AR-15.
Now I want you to think about this: where did the Second Amendment come from? … From the Founding Fathers, it’s in the Constitution. Well, yeah, I know that. But where did the whole concept come from? It came from Jesus when he said to his disciples ‘now, if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.’
RWW offers audio of his comments, if you need to hear them:
Given humanity’s predilection, as I noted already, for projection, it’s understandable that Boykin, a retired Army general, would envision Jesus as having been a warrior. But his desire to view Jesus as having been like himself, just isn’t valid. It certainly doesn’t mesh with other aspects of Jesus as reported elsewhere in the gospels (e.g. “turn the other cheek,” “he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword,” “blessed are the peacemakers,” etc.).
Boykin is quoting Luke 22:36-38, which is:
And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”
Taken at face value — without keeping the gospel’s ongoing narrative in mind — Jesus’ instruction to “whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one” certainly does appear to be his way of preparing his followers for military action. Why else would he ask all his followers to arm themselves? However, just a couple sentences later, he concedes that just two swords within his own company “is enough.” These two sentences conflict; he went from saying that “whoever has no sword” should acquire one, i.e. wanting all 12 of his apostles armed, to deciding that only two swords are sufficient. He cannot logically have meant to say both of these things. What’s more, this passage comes after the Last Supper and before his arrest, which presumably he knew would happen soon. It would have made no sense for him to plan for his group to take on a platoon of soldiers, armed with only two swords among them. That would never have worked out. Had Jesus been a soldier first and foremost as Boykin claims, he would never have settled for just two swords!
Many scholars believe this passage was injected into Luke (or into the pre-Lucan source) as a way of having Jesus fulfill prophecy (Lk 22:37 quotes Isaiah 53:12). It does also serve well as a plot device, providing the soldiers who would soon arrest Jesus an ostensible reason to do so (in other words, giving them cause to “number” Jesus “with the transgressors”). This makes sense within the terms of the story Luke is telling: the reader can easily presume the Romans wouldn’t have wanted a band of armed Jewish (potential) bandits lurking around in or around Jerusalem, around a Jewish holiday. Having just two swords among them might easily have justified an arrest within the terms of the story, but not enough that a pitched battle might take place.
Overall, the idea that Jesus was a warrior quite simply doesn’t make any sense. This is particularly true if one compares this section of Luke with its parallel in Matthew, where shortly after this point in the story (specifically in Mt 26:52), Jesus famously said, “all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.”
Aside from Lk 22:36-38 the only other place Jesus was said to have expressed any kind of violent attitude was in the Cleansing of the Temple, especially as reported in John 2:13-16 which reports he actually made a weapon (a scourge of cords) and used it on people. While I concede this is an example of violence done by Jesus, I can’t see how this sort of thing stacks up with claims such as Boykin’s that Jesus was a “warrior.” The warriors of the time didn’t settle for just using cord-scourges on people. They certainly didn’t rob people with them, or take on soldiers with them, or cause anything other than minimal mayhem. No, warriors used blades (of whatever sort they could get their hands on), as well as clubs, spears, and other implements capable of causing much worse injury than any scourge ever could. A scourge is by no means the weapon of a “warrior” … not in the 1st century Levant, and not now.
Boykin also bases some of his thinking on Revelation 19, but if Christian legend about this book is correct, this is not a description of how Jesus was in the past; instead, it’s a prediction of what he will be in the future. In other words, after Armageddon (Rev 16), Jesus will arrive as a warrior. But, he wasn’t one during his first incarnation, and he isn’t one yet.
Now, I’ll grant the Abrahamic God — to whom Jesus is related — certainly was warlike. A number of times in the Old Testament, he’s called YHWH Tzevaot and similar names, which are usually rendered in English Bibles as “the Lord of Hosts.” In Exodus 15:3, he’s explicitly called a warrior. But as much as Christians would like to view Jesus as being the same as YHWH, the cold fact is that his portrayal in the gospels is very different. The Jesus described in the New Testament is nothing like YHWH, and if most Christian denominations are right, this was intentional.
Lastly, Boykin’s assurance that he’s “checked out” that Jesus will return armed with an AR-15, is just a fucking joke! What mechanism could he have used to “check out” this assertion? How did he confirm it?
Photo credit: Michael D’Antuono.
Hat tip: Peter at Skeptics & Heretics Forum, Friendly Atheist, Gawker, and others.
Tags: 2nd amendment
, black christianity
, gen william g boykin
, general jerry boykin
, jerry boykin
, jesus christ
, jesus with an ar-15
, lk 22:36-38
, lord of hosts
, luke 22:36-38
, second amendment
, william g boykin
The Religious Right has long waged a fierce, active campaign to get Ten Commandments idols in or around courthouses, public schools, town halls, public parks, etc. They’re obsessed with it, for some reason, viewing Decalogue monuments has having some kind of magical power to make their communities better places. About the only power they have is to provide emotional reassurance in the face of the personal insecurity inherent in clinging to a package of metaphysical beliefs that have no demonstrable basis. Beyond that, Decalogue idols accomplish nothing whatsoever … aside maybe from making it clear to any and all non-Abrahamic believers that they’re neither wanted nor welcome.
The latest battle in militant Christianists’ ongoing war to get Decalogue monuments put up everywhere comes from the home state of Judge Roy “Ten Commandments” Moore, as reported by the Montgomery Advertiser (WebCite cached article):
The House Judiciary Committee passed a constitutional amendment without discussion or debate that would allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in public buildings and schools.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Duwayne Bridges, R-Valley, stipulates that the commandments could be displayed unabridged or unrestrained on public property as long as it’s in compliance with constitutional requirements.
Text of HB 45 can be obtained here (cached).
The ACLU doesn’t understand the need for this law, but that doesn’t faze R.R. activists, who insist it’s necessary as a proactive measure against imagined persecutory “judicial activism”:
Joe Godfrey, executive director of the Alabama Citizens Action Program, said the reason for the bill is that courts, over and over again, are ruling that you can’t display the Ten Commandments. He said they’re the foundation to the laws of our nation and society and should be allowed to be on display.
There are lots of problems with this Christofascist movement to put up as many Decalogue monuments in as many government facilities as possible. Because this is ongoing Religious Right campaign, I created a static page on this blog that describes the many different problems with it. In brief, it’s unconstitutional; all such displays are by nature sectarian; they’re clear violations of the Abrahamic religions’ injunctions against idolatry (included within the Ten Commandments themselves); they’re also forms of public piety which Jesus clearly forbid to all his followers; and because Christians building them violates the very religion they claim to believe in, doing so is a kind of hypocrisy, which Jesus also explicitly forbid them ever to engage in. As such, this is actually an un-Christian effort.
Note, too, that Christians demanding that Decalogue idols be put up all over the place, is itself a kind of activism, whereas they intend this law to block judicial activism they disapprove of. In other words, they’re happy to engage in their own form of activism but condemn all other forms of activism. Hypocrisy, thy name is “Christianist”!
Photo credit: TheRevSteve, via Flickr.
Hat tip: Friendly Atheist.
Tags: AL hb 45
, AL hb45
, alabama citizens action program
, christian right
, duwayne bridges
, hb 45
, joe godfrey
, religious right
, ten commandments
, valley AL
The nation’s Christianists have been whining and fuming for the last 5 years about Barack Obama’s election as president. They’ve made numerous accusations about him … such as that he’s a Kenyan citizen and not American, he’s a Marxist, a “secret Muslim,” a minion of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that he’s the Antichrist.
Although some Religious Right figures are willing to make statements of this sort openly, a lot have been more circumspect about it. They prefer to wink in the direction of such ideas rather than espouse them explicitly. It’s a kind of triangulation that maintains their appeal among angry, militant Rightists who genuinely believe in one of those insane Obama hypotheses, without appearing nutty, themselves, to the rest of us.
One Religious Rightist who recently decided to engage in this sort of triangulation, as the Religion News Service reports, is famed Texas megapastor Robert Jeffress (WebCite cached article):
Already no stranger to controversy, the Rev. Robert Jeffress, a Dallas megachurch pastor, is coming out with a book that claims President Barack Obama is clearing the way for the Antichrist.
Jeffress, head of the 11,000-member First Baptist Church of Dallas, writes in his book “Perfect Ending” that he does not believe Obama is the Antichrist, yet he links Obama’s support of gay marriage to the coming of the Antichrist. Many Christians believe Jesus’ Second Coming will feature a confrontation with an enemy called the Antichrist, based on interpretation of passages 1 John and 2 John.…
“While I am not suggesting that President Obama is the Antichrist, the fact that he was able to propose such a sweeping change in God’s law and still win reelection by a comfortable margin illustrates how a future world leader will be able to oppose God’s laws without any repercussions.”…
Jeffress wasn’t claiming that Obama is the Antichrist, and said he was not questioning the president’s faith. “But what I am saying is this: the course he is choosing to lead our nation is paving the way for the future reign of the Antichrist.”
Jeffress’s crybaby gripes center around the two current bogeymen of the R.R.: gay marriage and the contraception mandate. While it’s true he explicitly said he doesn’t think Obama is the Antichrist, that he connected Obama with this terrifying figure out of Christian legend can only be a potential appeal to other hateful Christianists who view the president as being in league with Satan.
The RNS article mentions the word “antichrist” was coined by the author of the Johannine epistles (specifically, it’s found in 1 Jn 2:18, 22; 1 Jn 4:3; and 2 Jn 1:7). But it’s not clear it refers to a single person or spirit. 1 Jn 2:18 reads:
Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
Clearly the Johannine author is saying there are many “antichrists”; but all the other mentions of “antichrist” are in the singular, and appear to refer only to a singular being. So which is it? Your guess is as good as mine. Although most fundamentalist Christians view “the Antichrist” as some future person, and connect him/her with “the Beast” of Revelation, the Bible itself makes no such connection, and 1 Jn 2:18 certainly contradicts that (since it mentions more than one Antichrist, contemporaneous with its author to boot).
The RNS story also mentions another stupid thing Jeffress said:
In his book, Jeffress makes his case that Christians should study prophecy more closely. “Evangelist Billy Graham once observed that ‘the most neglected teaching in the church today is the second coming of Jesus Christ,’” he said.
This is idiotic on two counts: First, because all Biblical prophecy — every last stinking bit of it — is pure, unfiltered, 100% grade-A bullshit. Simple as that. Second, that Biblical prophecy is somehow “neglected” is a flat-out lie. For the last few decades there’s been endless “End Times” talk streaming out of Christian fundamentalism. The success of the Left Behind publishing empire all by itself thoroughly disproves Jeffress’s (and by extension, Graham’s) contention that Christian prophecy is being ignored.
Photo credit: eyeliam, via Flickr.
Tags: 1 jn 2:18
, 1 jn 2:22
, 1 jn 4:3
, 2 jn 1:7
, barack obama
, biblical prophecy
, christian prophecy
, christian right
, dallas TX
, end times
, first baptist church
, obama controversy
, obama is the antichrist
, president barack obama
, president obama
, religious right
, rev robert jeffress
, robert jeffress
I already blogged about one sanctimoniosly-enraged religiofascist going on a hunger strike over gay marriage in Utah. But there’s a lot more going on in that mostly-Mormon state. As KSTU-TV in Salt Lake City reports, there was a rally for a revolt against that state’s government (WebCite cached article):
Billed as a call for an uprising, opponents of same-sex marriage gathered for a meeting in Highland on Saturday.
Former Graham County, Ariz., Sheriff Richard Mack spoke about issues concerning the U.S. Constitution, including same-sex marriage.
Mack says that since it appears that Herbert and other elected leaders have failed at their jobs, it’s up to law enforcement and everyday citizens to deny same-sex marriage.
“The people of Utah have rights, too, not just the homosexuals. The homosexuals are shoving their agenda down our throats,” Mack said.
Cherilyn Eager, who helped organize the event, says that it’s time for the citizens of Utah to speak up for their rights.
“We need people to stand up and speak out. We need to get noisy. We need some outrage,” Eager said. ”It is about the sheriffs now coming out to protect the people.”
Here’s the station’s video report:
In the course of supporting his call for revolution, Mack claimed that federal law doesn’t supersede state law … which is absolutely not true. There’s this little thing in the Constitution (Article VI, section 2 to be exact) known as the supremacy clause, which explicitly states this. So Mack is lying when he, ironically, says federal supremacy is a lie. That, in turn, makes him a lying liar for Jesus.
These people have a lot of trouble with the concept of granting others (for instance, gays) certain freedoms (for instance, the ability to marry). They appear to think this somehow affects them. But it doesn’t! Allowing gays to marry doesn’t prevent heterosexual couples from marrying and it doesn’t force people into gay marriages against their will. If a couple of gays somewhere get married, it doesn’t affect them in any way. They really need to grow up and get over themselves already, and move on with their lives … which are not changed in the slightest by Kitchen v. Herbert.
What’s more, calling for a revolt against the governor and state government which is doing its best to appeal the ruling, makes no sense to me. But then, what could this cynical, godless agnostic heathen possibly know about anything this important?
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.
, gay marriage
, gay marriage rights
, highland UT
, hunger strike
, kitchen v herbert
, liar for jesus
, liars for jesus
, lying liar for jesus
, lying liars for jesus
, richard mack
Note: There’s been an update to this story; see below.
The matter of gay marriage continues to drive the nation’s Christianists insane. State after state is adopting it … either due to court decisions or legislative action. Over the last couple of months alone, it’s become law in three states: Hawai’i, Illinois, and New Mexico.
To make things worse for gay-hating Christianists, in the very-conservative state of Utah, gay marriage is currently legal there (WebCite cached article), pending that state’s appeal of a federal judge’s decision in Kitchen v. Herbert. As one would expect, they’re not taking this news too well. As KTVX-TV in Salt Lake City reports, one of them thinks he’s found the solution to this vexing problem (cached):
A Utah man is vowing to go without any food until the state stops allowing same sex marriages. He claims if Utah wants to protect traditional marriage, it has an option it’s not using, and he’s fasting until it does it.
When same sex marriage became legal in Utah, people immediately reacted. Couples stormed county clerk buildings. State attorneys tried to stop it, and Trestin Meacham started fasting.
“I’m very disappointed,” said Trestin Meacham, fasting to stop Utah same sex marriages.
For the past 12 days Meacham hasn’t eaten anything. He’s surviving solely on water and an occasional vitamin.…
Meacham tells Reporter Brian Carlson he’s fasting to convince Utah to exercise the option of “nullification.” It’s posted on Meacham’s blog. According to his interpretation of states’ rights, Utah can nullify the recent federal court ruling by simply choosing not to follow it.
Here’s the station’s video report on Meacham’s tantrum over gay marriage:
His “nullification” is an interesting little nugget of pseudolaw that has no basis in reality. Every time it’s been attempted … for instance by a number of Southern states in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) … it failed to gain any traction or accomplish anything. Meacham is delusional if he thinks his proposal is going to work.
In any event, he claims to want to “protect traditional marriage,” however, there’s just one tiny little problem with that: Permitting gay marriage doesn’t cause it any harm! Allowing gays to marry, cannot and will never by itself prevent heterosexual couples from marrying, if they wish to. Allowing gays to marry, cannot and will never by itself force heterosexual people to enter into gay marriages against their will. Allowing gays to marry, cannot and will never by itself alter the lives of heterosexuals — in any fucking way!
Let me make this as clear as I can make it: Permitting gays to get married causes no one else any harm. It just doesn’t.
I dare Mr Meacham to show me how a gay couple getting married someplace, changes his life at all. I further dare any militant Christianist to demonstrate the harm that’s caused to him/her by gay couples getting married. I eagerly await evidence of any kind of identifiable, tangible damage that’s caused to anyone else by a gay couple getting married.
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.
Update: The U.S. Supreme Court put gay marriage on hold in Utah pending the state’s appeal of Judge Shelby’s decision (cached). No doubt Mr Meacham will declare his hunger strike “worked,” and credit his deity (and by implication, himself) for this; but really, neither of those had anything to do with it. The stay on gay marriage is a product of how federal litigation works, and was issued by the Court, not by anyone or anything else. And the issue hasn’t been resolved in his favor … just tabled while the machinery of the courts grinds away in its usual slow manner.
Hat tip: Rational Wiki.
, gay marriage
, gay marriage rights
, hunger strike
, kitchen v herbert
, salt lake city
, salt lake city UT
, trestin meacham
Now that the uproar over Duck Dynasty‘s Phil Robertson’s interview in GQ (WebCite cached article) has died down and he’s been un-suspended by the A&E network (cached), I find that the whole thing has been illuminating and instructive. Christians have taught me quite a bit about their religion, over the course of this controversy. Here are some of the lessons I’ve learned:
- A Christian can say anything s/he wants, and no one is permitted to be offended by it. To not like anything they say is to deprive them of their First Amendment rights … or something. One must always be happy with everything they say or do. Each time, every time, and in every case. Failing to praise their every utterance and deed is “persecution” that they cannot, and will not, tolerate.
- Christians have a special license to be hypocrites. For instance, they can bluster and fume over the insolence of “sinful” gays by citing scripture, after having amassed a vast fortune, in direct contravention of that same scripture. Really, it’s OK for them … in spite of the fact that the founder of their faith told them they couldn’t be hypocritical.
- While Christians normally object to anything that’s even remotely suggestive or risqué, they have, themselves, no reservations about being potty-mouths. For instance, they can talk about vaginas and anuses all they wish — but no one else can. In fact, being a potty-mouth for Jesus is a holy endeavor that no Christian apologizes for (cached). (Yep, that would be more of the aforementioned hypocrisy.)
- While Christians cannot and will never tolerate one of their own being disciplined of fired for being outspoken about his/her beliefs, they have no reservations at all about disciplining or firing non-believers for expressing what they think (cached). Wait, is that more of the hypocrisy that their own Jesus forbid them to engage in? You betcha! It sure was!
- Christians view things as being good or bad based solely on their own subjective criteria. For instance, white Christians can declare racial segregation and Jim Crow laws in the South to have been just fine, because they, themselves, didn’t happen to see any harm in them. And after all, the blacks were happier, back then. Weren’t they? (I mean that sarcastically, of course. Even if white southern Christians don’t.)
- Whenever one Christian is persecuted, others leap to his/her defense — automatically. In some cases, by the tens of millions. It doesn’t matter what the Christian actually said or did. All they know is a Christian somewhere got “dissed,” that this is utterly impermissible, and they’re pissed. They also don’t care how much trouble they cause (cached) … it’s all for Jesus, you see, and that makes it OK.
- Contracts mean little to Christians, where their religiosity is concerned. A Christian might agree to watch his/her mouth (cached), and maybe even sign a “morals clause” that permits discipline or firing for bad behavior … but s/he is free to break such agreements — without penalty! — so long as s/he does it for Jesus.
- Whatever tens of millions of Christians want, they get! Facts are irrelevant. Right and wrong don’t matter. Even massive corporations knuckle under to their bullying. If there are any Christians who’re disturbed by the sanctimonious fury of their co-religionists, they never speak up. Quite the opposite: They happily let the masses of other Christians carry on in their outrage like spoiled children.
- Christians view actual persecution of their faith — which quite unacceptably is happening (cached) in various places around the world (cached) — as inseparable from, and identical to, phantasmal forms of it (such as mere criticism of Christianity or its followers). Christians feel as though they’re “under attack,” therefore they believe they are under attack. Emotion and reality; fact and delusion; the subjective and the objective; rational and irrational; reasonable and fantastic; these are fused and conflated in Christianity and in the minds of its followers. There’s no difference between them … and no Christian will accept anyone telling him/her there is one.
Another way of putting it is, this sad debacle merely reinforced things I already knew about Christians and their religion. It also made clear that, when the nation’s Christofascists get angry enough and react fiercely enough, they get their way. No one stands up to them. The combination of their power over others, their unyielding militancy, and their delusional thinking, makes them extremely dangerous. We should all be worried … very, very worried.
Photo credit: Based on Monty Python & the Holy Grail.
, a&e networks
, christian martyr complex
, christian persecution complex
, ducky dynasty
, gq interview
, jim crow
, phil robertson
, racial segregation