The Pope – Good Man, Bad Policy


Pope Francis was in DC these past couple of days, and the news cycle could talk about nothing else. Literally. I resigned myself to turning TV news off for good and focusing on foreign media and the Wall Street Journal. Traffic was a bear, so I took an admin day in which I sat around the house all day in my pajamas, blogged, and marveled from my balcony at the beautiful day we were having!

I keep wondering if the area was such a nightmare for a papal visit, how the hell does anyone think DC could handle the 2024 Olympics?

But back to the Pope. The visit has, of course, caused numerous discussions about the nature of the Pope’s political views. Is he a socialist? Is he a communist? Should he be using the Catholic Church as his own, personal bully pulpit from which to pressure national governments to implement his leftist agenda? Blah blah blah.

I’m hardly a Catholic, and I’m not religious. So maybe looking at said Pope from the outside, so to speak, I can offer my somewhat more objective opinion.

In his historic address to the U.S. Congress, Pope Francis urged the politicians to cooperate and exercise basic kindness to others – especially those in dire need of it – immigrants, the poor, and the earth. The political tone was unmistakable: allow immigrants from Latin America to take advantage of the opportunities America offers, take steps to avert “the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity,” share those fruits of capitalist labor…

I wouldn’t mind the message so much if he stuck to delivering it to the people, rather than to those who hold the monopoly on government force. Of course, we need to be kind to others! Hell, the United States is a hugely charitable nation! Inherently there’s nothing wrong with that. But there’s a difference in giving to the poor and asking the government to take tax dollars by force (and if you don’t think that taxation is force, try not paying your taxes. See: Al Capone.) To quote Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice,” the quality of mercy is not strained. You don’t force charity at the point of a government gun, because then it ceases to be charity and becomes just another redistributionist scheme. There’s no virtue in forcing others to give what you think they should give at the point of a government gun.

Kind words. Bad policy.

Immigration made this country what it is today. I am an immigrant, as is everyone in my family. We came here in search of opportunities, and we found them. I have no problem with immigration per se. But there needs to be justice, and there needs to be security. There is no justice in telling illegal aliens, “Since your very first act in the country you claim to love was to violate its immigration laws, we’ll reward you with amnesty!” Sorry, but no! We all understand there are people escaping some pretty horrific abuses out there. We also get there are folks out there seeking economic opportunities they would never find in their own countries. These are all valid reasons for wanting to come to the United States. But to allow those who have entered here illegally to remain, while plenty of immigrants wait for permission is not fair. While the stories may tug at the heart strings, justice is blind for a reason, and using said emotionalist rhetoric as well as the influence of the church to push for injustice is just plain wrong.

Emotional kindness. Bad policy.

And then there’s the environmentalist stuff. Look, no one is denying that conserving resources, finding cleaner technologies, and working for a cleaner planet is a good thing, but to claim that humans cause global warming and to impose onerous government regulations on them that will make their lives more difficult is not kind, and it’s not responsible. It’s one thing to promote a clean planet and urge each person to take responsibility for it, but it’s quite another to urge the government to force people to do so, like these scientists, who recently began urging the Obama Administration to prosecute skeptics using the RICO Act. Many cite the Pope’s alleged Master’s Degree in chemistry as some kind of evidence of his authority on global warming.

Well… a) he doesn’t have a Master’s in chemistry. He was a “chemical technician,” who has degrees in theology and philosophy, and b) even if he did have a degree in chemistry, which he does not, that would not denote expertise in environmental sciences.

Dr. Patrick Moore, formerly of Greenpeace, does have degrees in both ecology and forest biology, and he claims many of the claims regarding climate change are hysteria. A number of other scientists say the IPCC projections on climate change cannot be accurate, including botanist David Bellamy, the former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology Judith Curry, and MIT professor of atmospheric sciences Richard Lindzen. Still more scientists argue that climate change is natural vice man-made – actual scientists such as University of Manchester professor emeritus of chemical thermodynamics Leslie Woodcock, UVA’s Fred Singer, and University of Ottawa environmental geochemist Jan Veizer.

In other words, despite what radical progs like to claim, the science is far from settled, and for the Pope to use the influence of the church to push destructive environmental policies in national legislatures based on scientific evidence that is still being examined and blaming “unbridled” capitalism for the destruction of the environment is blatantly policy prescriptive and dishonest.

Yes, I have policy disagreements with the Pope, and he absolutely has the right to his opinion. That said, going out and pressuring governments to adopt his opinions as policy should be disturbing to all those separation of church and state advocates, who rightfully say that religion and politics must be kept separate.

The Pope seems like a kind man. He’s a tireless advocate for charity, for tolerance, for ending suffering – these are all noble goals and his public advocacy has brought many people I personally know back to the church. My problem is not his views. Kindness, tolerance, generosity, charity are all virtues to be admired. But there’s no virtue in using government force to force those principles on others. There’s no virtue in disingenuously using the emotional power of the church to compel politicians to impose his views on the country.


Government force is not charity, and it’s not a virtue. It’s force.

And despite the Pope’s quite obviously good intentions, in the end the nature of force does not change, and using a very powerful spiritual tool to club politicians over the head in order to coerce them into using government authority over the citizens is not moral or kind. It’s authoritarian.

I don’t think the Pope is a communist. He has good intentions, but he doesn’t consider the nature of government or the consequences of his advocacy. He just wants to do good.

Are Some Religions Superior to Others? Who Cares!


Over the weekend, I saw the media screeching petulantly that Ben Carson apparently thinks Muslims shouldn’t be elected President of the United States, because apparently Islam is incompatible with the principles of the Constitution. This comes on the heels of yet more outrage about Trump refusing to correct some drooling conspiritard in New Hampshire, who screeched about Obama being a Muslim, and not American, and…. something. (I try not to pay too much attention to Trump, because a) he’s kind of nauseating, b) he’s immature, spoiled, and narcissistic, and c) he’s a douchebag.)

But back to Carson. I’m not a fan. He sounds like a nice enough guy – probably too nice to be in politics – but he’s also ignorant on policy, is a piss poor public speaker, and downright SUCKS on guns and free market issues. Sure, he NOW claims it was just political inexperience talking when he claimed that the right to own a semi-automatic weapon depended on whether someone lived in a rural or an urban area, but you know what? A guy who doesn’t even comprehend what a semi-automatic firearm is, clearly doesn’t understand the original intent of the Second Amendment, spews complete dumbassery on the topic, and then tries to backpedal when called on his ignorance, is not someone I want leading this country. I’m not particularly fond of his economic protectionism and support for increasing the minimum wage, either. It shows a lack of understanding about basic economic principles and free markets. Stick to neurosurgery, Dr. Carson.

But what I think of Carson is irrelevant for the purpose of this post. I’m more curious about his contention that a Muslim should not be elected President (Congress is apparently OK – never mind that the Speaker of the House is second in the line of succession should anything happen to the President). He claims that Islam is incompatible with the values and principles of our constitution and of America, and for this, CAIR is now shrieking that Carson should withdraw from the Presidential race, which kind of proves Carson’s point, n’est-ce pas?

Here’s the thing. Why should ANYONE care what religion our President chooses to exercise? Aren’t we conservatives always talking about shrinking the size of government? Aren’t we always advocating a government that does not intrude on people’s personal lives? So why should we make a religious test part of whether or not we support someone for President? Why should the President’s personal religious beliefs be an issue?

I mean, I get it. It’s not like Sharia doesn’t influence legislation in a number of Muslim countries. Hell, it’s a source of legislation for many of them that governs everything from prayer to personal relationships to sexual intercourse, and that’s clearly unconstitutional here in the United States. But then again, there seem to be some here in the United States who don’t have a problem with Judeo-Christian beliefs being imposed on everyone via government force. I don’t see any good reason why a government – ON ANY LEVEL – should be involved in personal relationships between consenting adults. And yet Kim Davis and the current crop of politicians that supports her are certainly doing exactly this. They seem to be OK with her refusing to do her job and with her discriminating against those with whose relationships she disagrees using her government position – BECAUSE OF HER FAITH.

I don’t care what religion you are. If you believe gay marriage violates your faith, don’t marry a person of the same gender. If you believe that you shouldn’t eat meat on Fridays or that you shouldn’t eat bacon, you are free to lead a miserable baconless existence. No government should be able to stop you. If your religion dictates you must birth as many children as possible, and both parties in a marriage agree it’s a great idea, you’re free to turn your vagina into a clown car and have those 19 kids. Can’t drink alcohol? Then don’t. Your God tells you that you shouldn’t drink coffee? By all means, don’t drink it then.

But the moment you stand up and proclaim that you want the tenets of your personal faith to be a part of America’s legal code – the moment you start yammering about changing the Constitution to reflect the word of the “living God,” you’re done. Yes, I’m speaking to you Huckabee. Go away!

I tell you what. I would rather vote for a Muslim presidential candidate who respects the law, respects the Constitution, understands and respects free markets, and protects our fundamental rights without trying to rewrite the Constitution to reflect his or her personal religious beliefs than a Christian who thinks it’s his or her personal duty to save us all by imposing Biblical principles on society at large via government force.

And yes, I’m aware that deception against non-Muslims is permitted and encouraged in certain circumstances. So I would wonder if Taqiyya would rule the candidate’s mindset when he or she proclaimed respect for the Constitution and commitment to the principles of limited government and free markets. But frankly, I’m also aware that politicians lie through their teeth regardless of faith. This has, unfortunately, become an all too common assumption when it comes to American politics, and certainly not limited to Muslims.

All this aside, my bottom line is this: I couldn’t possibly care less how you worship. I don’t care if you kneel on a rug five times per day, go to church on Sundays, attend synagogue on Fridays, or Buddhist temples on whenever you choose. I don’t care if you celebrate Yule, Christmas, or Hannukah.

Celebrate. Be happy. Commune with your deity of choice. Just leave the rest of us alone.

“I’m no hero.”


No, you’re not, Kim Davis.

I know, I’m breaking my own self-imposed rule by writing about this toad, but considering she has been screeching in the media about how she’s all victimy and stuff, I figured I’d clear up a few things.

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis says marriage licenses are being issued in Rowan County without her authority and she wants her name and title removed.

And when the deputy clerks issue licenses with her name removed, this entitled bitch says, “uh-uh!” The licenses may not be valid without her signature.

She would object to the documents noting that they come from the office “Rowan County Clerk,” and she would also want an official declaration from the court that the licenses aren’t being issued under her authority.

So, translation: I am the Clerk. I refuse to resign, because I’m entitled to my job and my $80,000/year salary. But I refuse to have legal documents issued under my authority, but I won’t resign and allow others to issue them under theirs.

Essentially, she’s holding the issue hostage.


Now, y’all know I’ve defended Christians and their right to hold their beliefs. My stance on churches performing gay marriages has always been and remains that any church should be free to deny or perform the religious ceremony for gay couples (much like any baker, photographer, etc. as a private citizen should have the right to deny any client for any reason, no matter how ignorant), and any congregants who disagree with their church’s actions on the issue can find a new place of worship. Everyone wins. No government interference. The church officials follow their own consciences on the issue, and the worshipers do as well.

This, however, has nothing to do with this toad’s religious freedom, and here’s why:

As the County Clerk, she is the government. She is part of said government. She is required to issue legal documents. Note, these licenses are not religious documents. They are legal ones. No one is asking her to approve of the union. No one is asking her to perform a religious ceremony. She is required – as part of her job – to issue legal documents to people – people who pay her $80,000 salary. If she cannot in good conscience do her job, she should resign.

But… But… But… Kentucky passed an amendment to its state constitution banning gay marriages and unions, and 10th Amendment!

Well, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By using her authority as Clerk, Davis is doing exactly that. Gays are persons. They are also taxpayers who pay her salary. She is denying them equal protection under the law, as is the Kentucky State Constitution. And she is doing so, even as she draws her salary from them.

But… but… but… putting her name on a license signifies her endorsement of gay marriage, and therefore violates her religious freedom!

No, it doesn’t. It is not a religious act she is being asked to perform, and even though the Kentucky State Constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman,

As the Court has already pointed out, Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities.

Surprisingly, the Washington Post analysis I cited above actually supports Davis’ view and says if she believes “that it’s religiously wrong for her to issue licenses with her name on them, ordering her to do that indeed burdens her religious beliefs, enough to trigger the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And giving her the more modest exemption from the include-the-court-clerk’s-name requirement might therefore indeed be required by the Kentucky RFRA.” The only problem with this is that if her name is removed as the clerk, then the licenses issues may very well be invalid, and once again, she is holding the process hostage to her religious beliefs.

Look, there are some complex legal issues here, and no one is denying this. This is one reason why government involvement in marriage is such a ridiculous idea, and why I’m a huge proponent of getting the government – whether federal or state – out of the issue altogether.

People who want to spend their lives together should be free to do so. They should be free to leave their estates to one another. They should be free to have children together and raise them with love and care. They should be able to visit one another in the hospital without showing a state-issued marriage certificate, and they should certainly be able to receive the flag from the casket of their loved one when said loved one is killed in action!

No one should be forced – and yes, government is force – to perform a religious ceremony, bake a cake, take wedding photographs, or create wedding bands for any ceremony they find religiously objectionable.

But to turn the tables, no government official – and make no mistake, that Davis toad is a government official – should have the right to deny equal treatment under the law to any taxpayer, thereby imposing their religious beliefs on said taxpayers by refusing to step down, since legally it might be that she’s the only one who is authorized by law to sign those legal documents. What she is saying is, “I will not sign these legal documents. I will not allow my name to be on them. But I won’t step aside and allow anyone else’s name to be on them either.”

As I said, it’s not about her religious freedom. It’s about everyone else’s right to be free from her religious views.

If this toad had any integrity at all, she would turn down the $80,000 salary paid by the taxpayers, that includes gay ones. But no… she’s fine with taking their tax dollars, but not fine with providing to them the services she was hired to provide?

Nope. Unacceptable. Unacceptable morally and ethically. And hypocritical to boot!

No, she is not a martyr.

No, she is not a hero.

No, she cannot be compared to Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr. or any other civil rights hero, because she is using her government office to deny equal treatment under the law to consenting adults wishing to spend their lives together, and she is hiding behind her religion. Sorry. NO-GO! She’s not fighting for religious rights. Her religious rights have not been violated, unless you consider her right to hold a government job and draw an $80,000 salary paid by the taxpayers a “right,” in which case, please just STAHP TALKING! No, she is not being punished for her religious beliefs. She is free to hold them. She is free to exercise them. She is free to worship as she pleases and to interpret her Bible in any way she wishes. What is is not free to do is use her government office to deny equal protections under the law to the very taxpayers who pay her fucking salary!

She is being punished for refusing to do her job, to which she doesn’t have a right. Get over it. This toad is no Rosa Parks.

As you can tell, I don’t think much of her as a person. I think she’s an attention whore. I think she’s a selfish twat, who if she had any integrity at all, would leave that cushy government job if she believed that something as simple as putting her name on a legal document (NOT A RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT) violates her religious beliefs.

I know plenty of religious people who believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I may not agree with them, but I’m not religious, so that’s understandable. They should be free to hold those beliefs without governments penalizing them. They should be free to decline to perform a religious ceremony if it violates their beliefs. They should be free to decline to participate in said ceremony, if it violates their beliefs.

But what they are not and should not be free to do is deny others equal treatment under the law if they are government officials. And that is exactly what Davis is trying to do, while hiding behind her “I’m a religious person” shield!

You may differ with me on the assessment. You may even know more about the law than I do. I freely admit I’m not a lawyer. I also freely admit, my amateur legal assessment may be off. That said, what is NOT off is my assessment that for Davis to refuse to treat all taxpayers equally while gleefully taking home a rather large paycheck funded by them is immoral and unethical. Bakers who refuse to cater gay weddings don’t take money from gay couples to whom they refuse to provide a service. Same with photographers, and any other private companies that refuse to make that a part of their services. Kim Davis still draws that salary from taxpayers, while refusing to provide them with the services for which they pay, and refusing to step aside and allow another government official to do so. That makes her a hypocritical toad in my book.

Have fun trying to convince me otherwise.

Isn’t this only slightly unconstitutional?


Hey, Alabama? Requiring teachers to lead kids in Christian prayer in public schools is… um… unconstitutional.

By way of a voice vote, the House Education Policy Committee passed a bill that would require teachers to recite Christian prayers in public schools every day, even though the majority of members did not vote for it.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Steve Hurst, R-Munford, would require teachers to spend no more than 15 minutes in the first class of each day to read, verbatim, opening prayers said before a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.

Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Indian Springs, chairwoman of the committee, said she heard more votes in favor of the bill.

“It’s what I heard as chairman,” she said.

Yeah, I’m sure that’s what you “heard as chairman,” but it’s still unconstitutional.

Look, I’m a pretty open minded kind of female. I have no problem with kids having their own little prayer groups, or learning about any religion in a public school. Fact is religion is a part of our culture and history, and to pretend it’s not there by not teaching kids about it is quite frankly stupid.

But notice I said, “teaching them ABOUT religion,” and not “teaching them religion.” There’s a difference.

I have no problem learning the history of different faiths, what they worship, how they worship, what they believe, etc. It’s knowledge, frothing atheist zealots. Get over it! It’s part of history. It’s part of geography. It’s part of current events. You can’t pretend religion doesn’t exist, and knowledge about the different faiths out there is important.

That said…

Forcing. Kids. To. Pray. Is. UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


You don’t need a degree in constitutional law to understand that!

The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a national religion. It is incorporated, so that states have to abide by it as well. Schools receive local, state and federal money. Ergo, they cannot impose Christian, Jewish, Wiccan, Buddhist, Muslim, Rastafarian, Pastafarian or Scientolog… ical (I hesitate to even use the word “logical” in that particular description of Scientology) prayers on kids.

A teacher is in a position of authority over kids. What do you think is going to happen when a teacher leads a mandated Christian prayer session in the classroom? Think there’s no element of coercion? Please!

When the Redhead was 11 years old, he went to a middle school in rural Virginia. He attended a DARE program taught by a local sheriff’s deputy. The Redhead really enjoyed the class. They played games, discussed the dangers of drugs, etc. One day, the Redhead brought home a pamphlet that this particular deputy handed to all the kids in his class. On its surface, it looked like a bunch of optical illusions and puzzles. However, a closer look revealed that it was a publication by these Living Waters freaks.

The pamphlet used puzzles and games to scare kids into accepting Jesus. It told them they could die at any moment, and if they did anything bad like lie in their lives, they were going to hell, unless… they accepted Jesus right fucking now! It told the kids they were sinners. It told them that hell awaits them all, because they were all inherently bad. It even had an optical illusion that used a reverse afterimage to deceive the kids into “seeing Jesus.”


The Redhead thought it was interesting, and it didn’t bother him. But I raised him to be a confident individual unfazed by religious scare tactics. But that doesn’t even matter.

There is no justification – NONE – for bringing scary death cult shit into a public school to scare kids into converting. The entire pamphlet was all about how they could die tomorrow, about how they’ll go to hell, about how Jesus will help them get to heaven, but since they could die tomorrow, perhaps they should stare at this picture and then close their eyes and find him!

How the fuck do you justify trying to scare a bunch of 11-year-olds into having faith?

Here’s a hint, frothing fundamentalist zealots: if you have to frighten, mislead, deceive or intimidate people into your beliefs, maybe your beliefs just aren’t strong or convincing enough to stand on their own merit!

I did contact the school and found out that the materials the deputy handed out were not approved by the school, and that the school officials weren’t even made aware that anything was going to be handed out to the kids! They told me this was the first time anyone had complained about the materials the deputy handed out, which makes me believe that either the parents aren’t looking closely enough, or this is the first time he’s brought that crap into the school.

For the record, I have no problem with anyone talking to my kid about religion, encouraging him to explore his spirituality or various faiths. No problem at all. But if you try to bully or deceive my kid into entering your little cult, I promise you will receive a swift kick in the gonads from yours truly!

But back to Alabama…

Forcing children to say Christian prayers in class with the teacher at the helm is coercive, especially if a child’s family practices something other than Christianity. Yes, believe it or not, there are families – even in friggin’ Alabama – that are not Christian! And guess what, you arrogant, supercilious shitbags! They pay taxes too, including your salaries and the salaries of those teachers whom you want to become accomplices in your little game of religious compulsion. And I’m fairly sure these families would be pretty unhappy if their tax dollars were paying for a coercive religious conversion.

But hey… it’s your state, so you do what you want.

Bring on the lawsuits!

The Duck Flap


I don’t know why I’m even mentioning this, other than I need to get this off my chest, and my Facebook feed is filled with photos of those bearded doofi and calls to boycott A&E.

If you’ve been living under a rock, the flap is over some show on A&E called Duck Dynasty (which I never watch), because the guy starring in it (who looks like a scarier version of Willie Nelson), who is apparently some really successful businessman, but looks like he lives in a rundown trailer in the middle of the Ozarks, said some ignorant shit about gays, so A&E suspended this redneck owing largely to a whole lot of screeching on the part of gay groups and advocates.

Point 1: What he said was absolutely ignorant and repulsive. He went on a rant about how vaj > anus, and how homosexuality is something akin to bestiality.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina…would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” Phil Robertson told the magazine.

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there: bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that women and those men…it’s not right,” he’s quoted as saying.

Classless. Stupid. Repulsive. All of the above. For someone who is supposed to be a successful businessman, this Duck Dynasty fellow is sure ignorant about human relationships. It’s as if he thinks relationships are all about where you stick your penis. Additionally, comparing a sexual act between two consenting (human) adults to animal cruelty and abuse (and essentially comparing both human beings to animals merely because of whom they choose to love) – let’s just say it’s not exactly Christian, as this Duck guy claims to be.

But hey – whatever. It’s his views, and I’m not out to change them.

Point 2: Duck guy is a celebrity, and he represents his show, and by extension his employer A&E. The “vaj>ass” remarks were simply in bad taste, and reflected poorly on his employer.  I’m not A&E, nor am I GLAAD or any other homosexual advocacy group, but I would venture an educated guess that had Robertson said “I’m a Christian, and my beliefs are that homosexuality is a sin,” I doubt there would have been much to suspend him for. But no… he had to venture into “gays = beasts” territory, which makes him seem ignorant and crass in the eyes of a lot of people.

Point 3: Robertson’s suspension from A&E has NOTHING to do with his First Amendment rights. The First Amendment protects individuals and groups speech and expression from government prosecution and persecution. It certainly does not protect them from the consequences, which include job loss, and outcry from others when they say something stupid. In other words, Duck guy has every right to air his views about gays, dogs, adulterers or anything else, but he’s not free from the consequences of his words. No one is jailing him for speaking out about his views. No one is imposing fines on him. He’s free to speak and continue speaking. And his employer is free to end the association if need be.

Point 4: Robertson has no right to a job. A&E is and should be free to suspend him, fire him, etc. should the network feel it necessary, for whatever reason. If what Robertson said impacts the station negatively and impacts its bottom line, it should have the right to get rid of him. Again, Duck dude is not free from the consequences of his actions.

People screeching about his First Amendment rights should understand this.

That said…

Point 5: Come on, GLAAD! It’s some redneck on some reality show! It’s not like you’re being hanged for being gay in Iran! Get some perspective. Get an enema. Don’t watch the show. Don’t watch the channel. Boycott whatever advertisers that show has. But understand that everyone has a point of view, and while society in general is a lot more accepting of gays and lesbians, not everyone is going to accept you. Sorry, but it’s true. You can’t force people to change their opinions, and you shouldn’t. I know not everyone is going to like me, because I’m a ginger… or because I was born a Jew… or because I’m an atheist. I know many Christians who tell me I’m going to hell. So what? If I took everything they say about me seriously, I’d be rotting in a mental institution by now, drooling on myself and excited for my next lithium pill.

In other words, chill the hell out!

All of you.

It’s a redneck on a reality show voicing his opinion in a pretty ignorant manner, not some plot to imprison you for your lifestyle!

I was pretty vocal in my defense of Dan Cathy in the Chick-fil-A flap, because the chain really was persecuted by local and state officials in some areas for its owner merely voicing his opinion. I don’t agree with his views on marriage, but he’s Christian and he’s entitled to voice them without fat, drooling shitbags like Menino in Boston trying to hinder his livelihood because of them.

In this case, Duck guy has no right to a job. His employer is a private employer and has every right to fire him.

So, please – stop yammering on about his rights being violated! All that has happened is that the guy said some pretty ignorant shit in public and his employer decided to end the association. That’s it. Get over it.

Dear Christians –


If you are wondering why people think you’re all shitslurping assholes, look no further than this church.

Elders at Ridgedale Church of Christ told Linda Cooper and two relatives that their public support for Kat Cooper, Linda Cooper’s gay daughter, went against the church’s teachings, local media reported. In a private meeting, reports say, Linda Cooper was given a choice: publicly atone for their transgressions or leave the church.
Linda left the church.
Kat Cooper is a detective with the Collegedale Police Department. This month, she fought successfully for health benefits for her same-sex spouse, Krista, from the town.
The Board of Commissioners passed a resolution allowing for same-sex partner benefits, becoming the first city in Tennessee to do so.
Along the way, the mother publicly supported her daughter. That support appears to have led to a rift with her church.

OK, so this lady has attended this church for more than 60 years. That’s SIX DECADES.

According to the story, the “public support” of her daughter involved being there for her.

To the church, this is some kind of horrid transgression. A mother who loves her daughter, and supports her legally-joined partner getting health benefits – just like any other legally-joined partner – something that could and should be viewed as equal treatment under the law…

Apparently that just won’t do.

And apparently, unless she publicly renounces her daughter’s “sin,” she must leave the church she has attended and supported for six bloody decades.

Did Linda Cooper, in fact, “endorse” her daughter’s lifestyle, as the minister of this church claimed? I don’t see it. Demanding equal protection under the law for two people who are legally joined/married/whatever you want to call it does not mean endorsing a lifestyle. It means that this woman loves her daughter, and whether or not she agrees with her daughter’s lifestyle is completely irrelevant.

Nonetheless, this lady has been shunned by the church she has attended for nearly her entire lifetime for her refusal to condemn her child, whom she ostensibly loves. This is not about condoning what the Church considers to be a sin. This is about supporting a child you love unconditionally in a legal matter. Apparently, this particular band of frothing fundamentalist fruitcakes doesn’t like that, and therefore, Mrs. Cooper is now being forced to leave the church in which she grew up…

…all for the “sin” of publicly supporting the child she loves in a legal matter.

I know a lot of religious Christians, Jews, etc. I don’t agree with some of them on the matter of gay rights, but those I consider my friends also accept this difference of views, and do not treat gay people with any less respect than they do straight people.

Unfortunately, foaming at the mouth zealots such as this shitbag of a minister, are of a different breed altogether. They would even force a parent to condemn their own child and exile a church member for failing to properly denounce their loved one!

And these are the fundamentalist assholes that give the rest of the Christians a bad name.

I supported Chick-fil-A owner Dan Cathy’s right to voice his opinion on gay marriage based on his religious views without local governments in “tolerant liberal utopias” such as Boston and San Francisco persecuting them and destroying their efforts to build their business in those cities using local government power.

I support the right of gay couples to be legally married and to enjoy (some will debate that, based on their own matrimonial experiences) the benefits that go along with being married.

I support the right of anyone to have and voice his or her views on any topic without government persecution. The church is a religious entity, and it certainly has the right to boot out any member for any reason.

However, doing so will not and should not make this church exempt from criticism.

Frankly, this church makes Christians look bad. It makes them look like repugnant, intolerant, disgusting bigots.

I’ve met plenty who are, and I’ve met plenty who are not. But the rotten ones are louder and more obnoxious, and I can’t help but think that their actions will reflect badly on all Christians – even those who hold the “hate the sin, love the sinner” mentality, and even the ones who support gay rights outright.

As an aside… The church is a tax exempt entity. Many churches also receive government grants. That’s taxpayer money going to these churches – taxpayer money that is taken out of pockets of gay and straight people alike. While it used to be that the congregations supported the churches, more and more, the churches are turning to governments – be they federal, state or local.

So, if gay people, who ostensibly pay the same taxes as straight people, are also funding grants for the nation’s churches, wouldn’t they morally have the right to demand the same services as the straight congregants?

This is the problem with the government having its paws in everything, including churches. This is why we do have the separation of church and state. It’s not just to prevent the federal government from imposing a national religion. It’s also to protect churches from government intrusion. If you are receiving taxpayer money, the taxpayers have the right to make demands of you. So if a church is receiving tax dollars, wouldn’t the government have the right to make demands on said church?

Just a few thoughts on that front.

But my bottom line is this: to churches such as the Ridgedale Church of Christ – yes, you have every right to exile this poor woman for supporting her beloved child. And we have every right to call you out as the bigoted piece of shit assholes you are.

This is a Good Thing!

Comments Off on This is a Good Thing!

It’s about time that the military recognized that service members come from all faiths (and non-faiths) – not just Judeo-Christian!  In 2007, the Bush Administration finally allowed the Wiccan pentagram – a five-pointed star inside a circle on the gravestones of Wiccan military members in Arlington Cemetery and other military burial grounds.

Last week, the VA approved Thor’s hammer as one of 56 emblems troops can request to have placed on their headstones.

While some only know of Thor as a comic book hero, he actually dates back to Norse mythology. Thor used his magical hammer to protect humans and other gods from giants.

But today, that hammer means something special to those who practice Ásatrú and worship the Norse Gods. And as NPR’s “The World” reported last week, those who identify as such and served in the military now have the option of marking their gravestone with Thor’s hammer.

I had an instructor at the Primary Leadership Development Course (Today it’s called WLC – Warrior Leader Course) back in 2005, who practiced Ásatrú. He was one of the best NCOs I have ever met! Not only was he incredibly bright, but he was also a killer on the land nav course, and could kick some serious ass!

We’ve come a long way from those days when people who put “Pagan” on their ID tags were regarded with a certain amount of disgust. I’ve seen it. A female in my basic training platoon requested “Pagan” on her ID tags and received an “Ummm… OK” sideways look.

During a readiness exercise right before my last deployment, one of the trainers proudly informed me that he was a Satanist, and showed me his ID tags. I think he was hoping to freak me out. It did not work.

Look, as far as I’m concerned, if you can shoot straight and I can rely on you to have my back, it doesn’t matter if you worship Jesus, Allah, Thor, Snoopy or the Great Pumpkin! I’m just glad those of different faiths are being recognized for their ultimate sacrifice.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: