Posts Tagged “christians”

PsiCop graphic / “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men  to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward  with your Father who is in heaven.” ~Mt 6:1, NASBThe mayor of the Dallas-Ft Worth suburb of Flower Mound, TX has declared 2014 to be “the Year of the Bible.” As KXAS-TV in Ft Worth reports, this is problematic (WebCite cached article):

The mayor of Flower Mound is receiving a lot of attention after declaring 2014 the “Year of the Bible.”

Flower Mound Mayor Tom Hayden made the proclamation during a regularly scheduled city council meeting in the Dallas-area suburb last month.

“I ask that you join with me, Tom Hayden, Mayor of the Town of Flower Mound, Texas, in Proclaiming 2014 to be the ‘Year of the Bible’ in Flower Mound, Texas, and encourage all residents in their own way to examine the principles and teachings found in the Bible,” Hayden said during the Dec. 16 meeting.

Here’s the station’s video report:

It appears Flower Mound isn’t exactly some backwater town in the wilds of Texas where everyone is a card-carrying, Bible-thumping member of some Protestant evangelical church. As the story explains, it’s much more cosmopolitan (in terms of religion) than that:

There are dozens of churches in Flower Mound, which has a population of more than 66,000 people. The majority of the churches are Christian-based, but at least five of the organized religions with places of worship in Flower Mound are not. There is an Islamic mosque, a Hindu temple, a Baha’i temple, a Zoroastrian church and a Jewish synagogue.

Well done, Yeronner, you’ve successfully alienated a bunch of your constitutents. Well done! You must be so proud!

Like any shifty Christofascist who’s been caught saying or doing something for Jesus that he shouldn’t have done, Hayden is veering all over the place trying to avoid responsibility for what he did and downplaying its SOCAS implications:

Hayden added that he is disappointed that the focus for some concerning the “Year of the Bible” proclamation has been on him and not, as he intended, on the teachings in the Bible.…

Hayden reiterated to NBC 5 Monday this proclamation was not an order on behalf of the municipal government, but was instead an action taken specifically and solely by him.

That last part is a lie, of course. I will repeat what he said when he made his proclamation (emphasis added):

“I ask that you join with me, Tom Hayden, Mayor of the Town of Flower Mound, Texas, in Proclaiming 2014 to be the ‘Year of the Bible’ in Flower Mound, Texas, and encourage all residents in their own way to examine the principles and teachings found in the Bible,” Hayden said during the Dec. 16 meeting.

That’s right: He explicitly and overtly made this proclamation as Mayor of his town! Also — if you look at the video above, you’ll see Hayden made his proclamation with the Flower Mount, TX emblem as a backdrop. So when he told the reporter he did this as a private citizen and not as Mayor, he was lying. This little bit of disingenuity places Mayor Hayden squarely in my “lying liars for Jesus” club.

Of course, Hizzonner also is disobeying his own Jesus. You see, merely by standing up and trumpeting his own reverence for the Bible, he’s engaging in the practice of “public piety,” which the founder of his own religion clearly and unambiguously forbid him ever to do:

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. (Mt 6:1-6)

It’s quite obvious to me that a lot of Christians like Hizzonner have a great deal of trouble with this particular passage. They ignore it because, let’s face it, what good is it to be an upright, dutiful Christian, if one doesn’t go around impressing others with how uprightly and dutifully Christian one is? So what if Jesus forbid that?

Photo credit: PsiCop graphic, based on Mt 6:1, NASB.

Hat tip: Hypervocal.

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

Comments No Comments »

Help! Help! I'm being repressed! (Dennis the constitutional peasant, Monty Python & the Holy Grail)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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.)
  4. While Christians cannot and will never tolerate one of their own being disciplined or 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!
  5. 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.)
  6. 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 about it. They also don’t care how much trouble they cause (cached) … it’s all for Jesus, you see, and that makes it OK.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

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

Comments No Comments »

Fist, by jnatoli, via DeviantartThis is only my second post on “the War on Christmas” during 2013, not because there’s no material to draw on; Christofascists’ campaign to force every American — Christian or otherwise — to celebrate their holiday as they demand it be celebrated continues apace, and media outlets have filed many stories on it. It’s just that, after several years of commenting on it here, I’m selecting only the most remarkable of them to blog about.

The most recent that I came across, qualifies as that. It’s an example of the metaphorical “war on Christmas” resulting in very-real violence. KNXV-TV in Phoenix, AZ reports on this scuffle (WebCite cached article):

Some might call it the December Debate — do you greet people with “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays”?

A Valley woman, who’s also a bell ringer for the Salvation Army, says she was assaulted for choosing the wrong one.

Kristina Vindiola says a woman hit her outside the Wal-Mart on 91st Avenue and Thomas Road after she said “Happy Holidays.”

“The lady looked at me,” said Vindiola. “I thought she was going to put money in the kettle. She came up to me and said, ‘Do you believe in God?’ And she says, ‘You’re supposed to say Merry Christmas,’ and that’s when she hit me.”

Here’s their video report:

The story goes on to partially excuse the attacker:

Shoppers we spoke with understand how some people can get offended.

It then quotes several Christians who commented on “Happy Holidays” vs. “Merry Christmas.” Of course, none of them came right out and said explicitly that they approve of someone being punched out over it … but just saying one “understands” the concern, is a mild, tacit approval.

Police aren’t taking action because videotape of the attack, they say, isn’t enough for an arrest. The story doesn’t explain this any better than that.

Photo credit: jnatoli, via Deviantart.

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

Comments 1 Comment »

crying babyIt’s become cliché: Every time there’s a massacre somewhere — especially in a school — Christofascists line up to blame it on people refusing to believe what they believe. The latest example of this tired act comes in the wake of the Arapahoe High School shooting, and was penned by Denver-area pastor R. Loren Sandford, for Charisma News (WebCite cached article):

Why? These things never happened a generation ago, when, whether or not we really lived it, our nation at least acknowledged God and our families for the most part remained whole. I want to scream, “America! Wake up!” I have unhappily prophesied in writing that we are witnessing the catastrophic collapse of a once-great culture and our children are paying the price. I warned in my annual prophetic word just a few weeks ago of the rising tide of hatred around us that will surface in many arenas of life. This shooting is a manifestation of that hatred which inevitably results when a nation forgets its rightful Lawgiver and turns from His principles that were given to ensure the well-being of all God’s creation.

Note that Sandford’s claim that “these things never happened a generation ago,” is a lie. School shootings have happened right through the nation’s history. In fact, one of the most infamous of them occurred before America’s independence, during the Pontiac’s Rebellion. And the single worst school massacre (a bombing, not a shooting) took place in 1927. There’s actually a long and sad tradition of such events, which took place both before and after Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), which Sandford may or may not be alluding to (although 1962-63 was a lot more than “a generation ago”).

The rest of Sandford’s screed includes more tired whines, such as that there can be no morality apart from his Jesus, which is just not the case, no matter how often Christianists like him keep repeating it. Unfortunately for them, no amount of repetition can ever make that assertion magically come true.

In any event, if Pastor Sandford is so convinced that non-belief is the culprit here — rather than sociopathy — and that the entire country is obligated to believe in his Jesus, then I invite him to begin with little old me. Track me down, Pastor, and force me to convert (back) to charismatic Christianity. Go ahead. I dare you. Give it your best shot! Given your stated thinking, you have no reason not to do so … not to mention, my explicit invitation to try … so get to it already! You won’t be able to convert me, but you can sure do your best! Why would you not, Pastor? Are you too cowardly to try?

Hat tip: Friendly Atheist.

Photo credit: Ernesto JT, via Flickr.

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

Comments No Comments »

Between masses at Our Lady of Grace Church in Edina, Archbishop John Nienstedt spoke directly to the media for the first time in months. / Richard Tsong-Taatarii, Star-Tribune.Note: There’s been an update to this story; see below.

I’ve blogged already about Archbishop John Nienstedt of St Paul & Minneapolis, who may have been behind the destruction of a computer that had belonged to a pedophile priest, before police could get their hands on it. At the moment, though, rather than protecting a cleric who’s been accused of impropriety, as the Religion News Service reports, he’s the target of such an accusation himself (WebCite cached article):

Twin Cities Archbishop John Nienstedt, already under fire for failing to take action against priests suspected of abuse, announced Tuesday (Dec. 17) that he is stepping aside temporarily after a minor accused the outspoken archbishop of touching his buttocks during a group photo after a 2009 confirmation ceremony.

In what he called “a difficult letter for me to write,” Nienstedt says he learned of the allegation during the weekend. He said he does not know the young man and he presumes his accuser to be “sincere in believing what he claims.”

Nienstedt denies the allegation, and insists any contact during picture-taking was innocent … which may well be the case … but the fact that he stepped aside, at least temporarily, is significant.

The RNS article goes on to explain that, over the past weekend, Nienstedt had “apologized” for his weak handling of priestly pedophilia claims in his archdiocese. He claims he’d been assured things were well in hand, when he took office, so he blithely assumed they were — but in fact, they weren’t. I don’t buy that excuse, though, and neither should you: He became archbishop in 2008, some 5 years after the priestly-pedophilia scandal had blown up in the U.S., with new revelations still trickling out all over the place. Nienstedt cannot reasonably have been unaware that problems might have continued to lurk within his archdiocese. It just doesn’t make any sense for him to have assumed that, at that time.

Update: The Catholic News Service reports police have cleared Nienstedt and he’s returned to his job (cached).

Photo credit: Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

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

Comments No Comments »

1543 On the Jews and Their Lies by Martin LutherThere’s a sinister stream of anti-Semitism lurking within Christianity. Through their history, Christians have inflicted their rage and fury on the Jewish people quite readily. In classical times, during the Middle Ages, and right into modern times, Christians have condemned, harassed, persecuted, and even killed Jews, because they hold that nation responsible for their Jesus’ crucifixion.

Even now, in light of the horror of the Holocaust, there remains within Christendom a simmering undertone of animosity toward Jews. The reason for this is both simple and obvious: Jesus himself was a Jew, whose original ministry was among Jews, and whom Christians believe was the Jews’ foretold Messiah; but Jews have refused to accept this premise, and dare continue being insolent enough to reject their Jesus. Quite simply, Christians can’t handle the idea that Jesus’ own people don’t view him the same way they do.

This sentiment has been present within Christianity since its opening decades. For instance, the evangelist Matthew wrote (emphasis mine):

When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.” And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified. (Mt 27:24-26)

Now, most Christians these days may not wish to admit this undercurrent lies deep within their faith. It’s true that not every Christian is an anti-Semite; I don’t think that at all. Many of them recognize this horrific history, and now reject it. But there remains a kind of reasoning, based on scriptural precedents such as the above, that occasionally rears its head within Christianity.

The most recent example of this, as reported by the Boston Globe, came in an article posted on the Web site of a Harvard student journal (WebCite cached article):

A Christian journal run by Harvard College undergraduates published an essay on its blog by an anonymous Jewish convert to Christianity who said that Jews killed Jesus and therefore deserve God’s wrath.

Noting the suffering Jews have experienced throughout history, including the Holocaust, the author wrote, “We, the Jews, collectively rejected God and hung Him up on a cross to die, and thus we deserved the punishments that were heaped on our heads over the last 2000 years.”

The essay, titled “Why Us?”, was published online Wednesday by the Harvard Ichthus — a student group recognized by the university — and promoted on the journal’s Twitter account. It was removed Friday afternoon with a note indicating it was “under editorial review.”

After some half-hearted partial explanations for how such an article could have been posted on Ichthus’s site, its editor-in-chief finally offered a non-apology apology for it (cached):

“The piece is not online because we believe that the piece is not conducive to the goals of the Ichthus,” Gyde wrote in the apology. “This particular piece has led to increasing misunderstanding and disinformation about the author’s views, the Ichthus, and Christianity. We do acknowledge that many of the claims of Christianity are offensive to those who do not believe it, but we think that much of the offense that has resulted from this article is not the offense of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And for that we apologize.”

This sounds convoluted … and it is. My best paraphrase: “We know non-Christians are offended by Christianity. We’re sorry our message is offensive in spite of the fact that we don’t intend it to be offensive even if we know it is offensive.”

So long as Christians continue revering scripture, and so long as that scripture contains passages like Mt 27:24-26 (not to mention others such as 1 Th 2:13-16 and Heb 10:28-3), this same kind of hateful thinking is going to keep coming up. What can Christians do about this? I’m not sure. Beyond rethinking their veneration of scripture, there wouldn’t seem to be much they can do to prevent it from ever being a problem again.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

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

Comments No Comments »

Italian archbishop Rino Fisichella holds the ashes of Saint Peter before a ceremony at the Vatican, on November 24, 2013 (AFP Photo / Vincenzo Pinto, via Yahoo News)Today the Roman Catholic Church marched out relics which, the Vatican claims, belong to St Peter, the man whom legend claims established Christianity in the Roman Empire’s capital. The AFP via Yahoo News reports on this momentous occasion (WebCite cached article):

Bones believed to belong to Saint Peter, one of the founding fathers of the Catholic Church, went on display for the first time Sunday, as Pope Francis held a ceremony to end the “Year of Faith”.

Tens of thousands of pilgrims gathered to catch a glimpse of the remains, eight fragments of bone between two and three centimetres (around one inch) long displayed on an ivory bed within a bronze chest on a pedestal in St. Peter’s Square.

The chest, given to pope Paul VI in 1971 and usually kept in the tiny chapel of the papal apartments, was decorated with a carving of Peter, who was a fisherman before becoming the Church’s first pope, casting his nets into the sea.

Given that Christianity in the city of Rome does date back to the first century CE, and has had a more-or-less continuous presence there since, one would think these bones might have been collected and saved all that time. But that turns out not to be the case. These relics were a 20th century discovery, and it’s not at all clear these are truly the bones of St Peter. But the Vatican is undeterred by archaeological questions:

The bones have long been the object of controversy between historians and archaeologists: they were first discovered in a 1940 dig next to an ancient monument honouring Saint Peter, but ended up gathering dust in a storage box.

It was not until archaeologist Margherita Guarducci discovered graffiti near the excavated tomb reading “Petros eni”, which could mean “Peter is here”, that she requested tests on the fragments.

She found they belonged to a robust man who died aged between 60 and 70 and had been buried in a purple, gold-threaded cloth — enough to convince Paul VI to say in 1968 that Peter’s bones had been identified “in a convincing manner.”…

“Faith, the people of God, have always believed these to be the relics of the apostle Peter, and we continue to venerate them in this way,” Rino Fisichella, head of the pontifical council for evangelisation, said in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano.

The veneration of saints’ relics is a feature of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity which most other Christian sects have done away with. It seems a fairly unsavory practice to cling desperately to the physical remains of long-dead people. But the macabre nature of relic-worship doesn’t faze Catholics. They continue to believe such things carry metaphysical power that somehow connects them more closely to their God … a God whom they believe is omnipotent and therefore, presumably, doesn’t require such things to maintain his connection with his followers.

Let’s face it: People are irrational creatures, and it’s events like these that help demonstrate it.

Photo credit: AFP Photo / Vincenzo Pinto, via Yahoo News.

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

Comments No Comments »