Posts Tagged ‘Jesus’

Perpetuating the Jesus as a Great Guy Fallacy

Monday, September 21st, 2009

buddyjesusIgnorance of actual biblical language by the liberal media perpetuates the fallacy that Jesus was a great guy worthy of emulation, and it indirectly empowers Christianity.

For example, on Friday’s Countdown, Guest host Lawrence O’Donnell refers to Rep. Michelle Bachmann championing less regulation and restraint for insurance companies as a deviation from the “What would Jesus do approach to health care.” Markos Moulitsas (Daily KOS) replies that when he was growing up, going to Sunday school, he learned that Jesus would help the poor, the sick, the needy, he didn’t care, he helped them all.

But, said Moulitsas, apparently that was liberal propaganda because the conservative Jesus asked them if they had insurance, and if they couldn’t afford it, he turned them down. “When leprosy was considered a pre-existing condition, those guys were out of luck.”

Well, Markos got it wrong. Jesus didn’t heal all of the sick and care for all of the poor. He showed off his magical healing powers relatively few times, ignoring some pleas for help,1 and offering no beneficial information for those following him that would help them heal the sick or care for the poor. Jesus is supposedly God, and therefore all-powerful and omniscient (if he wanted to be), yet for some reason, he did not give the people information about, say, bacteria? Cures for disease? Some basic science?

When we talk about reforming health care, we are limited by many things, including funding and medical knowledge. No one can fault us for not being able to treat everyone for everything. We can certainly be faulted, though, for not trying. Why, then, does the most powerful creature in the universe get praised for healing maybe a few dozen people when there are millions suffering and many millions more set to suffer in the future who could have not suffered if we had known how to treat and prevent illness when Jesus roamed the earth and could have just let us know?2 If it’s because Jesus didn’t really care about this world, but was preparing us for the next, that ignores the often lengthy suffering many must endure through their lives here. It also creates a condition — believe and have faith in Jesus or suffer now AND perish in the fires of hell later. That’s praiseworthy?

Republican JesusThe statements made by Moulitsas, and often Keith Olbermann when he criticizes right-wingers for saying they’re Christians, but, according to Olbermann, not doing what Jesus would have done, perpetuate the idea that what Jesus would have done is something good. Jesus came to earth to teach people about hell (a concept not seen prior to Jesus in the bible), not to be buddy-buddy with everyone. He came with a sword,3 and his mission was to convert people, and threaten them with hell if they didn’t follow him. His parables were ambiguous riddles, not insightful analogies.

Why are left-leaning media pundits invoking Jesus? For two reasons: one, because right-leaners claim to be “good Christians,” but are often caught red-handed doing something they’ve advocated against — like saying “fuck it” to “traditional” marriage by having an affair. Sometimes with those of the same gender. Double whammy! What’s the problem with attacking them based on their belief system? Well, traditional marriage is ambiguous, but mostly favors whatever the husband wants to do. He can, traditionally, have sex with whomever he wants. The wife was chattel (property). So, when these men advocate traditional marriage, they’re in fact living it. To attack them for being hypocrites for what they say they believe is a baseless attack. On the other hand, some of the perpetrators actively hunt, with laws and political platforms, others who behave in the exact same way. That’s a prime and just target for attack.4

The second reason left-leaning media pundits invoke Jesus is because they don’t read the bible. They don’t know that the right-wingers just chuckle and roll their eyes when left-wingers talk about how altruistic and great Jesus was, when, in fact, he was a passive-aggressive asshole who went around proclaiming himself a king, but who couldn’t make any friends without threatening them with eternal torture or promising them eternal bliss. I’ll love you and send you to heaven if you do exactly as I tell you, which, by the way, is so fucking confusing that there’s no way you’ll ever be able to do it, ha ha, Amen.

Instead of invoking Jesus and focusing on the alleged hypocrisy of belief compared to scripture, the leftist media should, instead, focus on the hypocrisy of punishing others for behaving the same way as the punisher. By giving any credulity or positive reflection of Christianity, they make themselves look uninformed, and they give credit where it’s not due.

The real question we should ask is whether health care should be conditional, and, if it should, whether the imposed conditions are fair. I think that’s probably what Moulitsas was trying to say — we shouldn’t abandon someone due to inability to satisfy the unfair conditions of the current health care system, and we shouldn’t modify the health care system to perpetuate or create new unfair conditions. Unfortunately, in O’Donnell and Moulitsas’ attempt to show the unfairness, they brought up yet another system with unfair conditions, put up the “Can’t touch Jesus” flag, and assumed everyone would get the picture.

The picture is that Moulitsas has confirmed that what you learn in Sunday school is not what’s in the bible, and that the trend of invoking Jesus and Christianity as something good on leftish politico television is becoming tiresome and trite, if not distracting.

  1. Poor Paul: ” To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. 10That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). Also, if that weren’t convincing enough, Jesus would not heal those who lacked faith: “Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.” 5He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6And he was amazed at their lack of faith.” (Mark 6:4-6). [<]
  2. There are quite a few stories of Jesus healing the sick, curing disease, and expelling demons, but it’s obvious that literally not everyone was healed, there being examples of those who asked and did not receive, as well as Jesus indicating that he could not or would not heal those who lacked faith in Jesus. Conditional healing is not the kind of healing we hear about regarding Jesus, because people choose to look beyond that. Indeed, it doesn’t stop at healing. Even heaven is forbidden to those who aren’t brainwashed sufficiently. [<]
  3. “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB) “And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear. {52} Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
    Matthew 26:51-52 [<]
  4. See Atheist Revolution’s Hypocrisy Tag, State of Protest’s “Sanford and Ensign Should be Put to Death,” and “Sanford and Ensign Plead Guilty to Tax Fraud.” [<]

Is Stephen Harper an atheist?

Wednesday, July 8th, 2009

According to this article, Stephen Harper refused to swallow his wafer. Why?

Could this be a sign that another political leader simply fakes his religion? He failed to accept the flesh of Jesus Christ, which is an unforgivable sin (if it isn’t, it should be). The world, or perhaps just Canada, awaits an answer.

Maybe he just wasn’t hungry and thought he would eat Jesus later?

Another Thoughtcrime Victory! Manga Porn = 15 years

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

Just when you thought it was safe to possess a pen and paper, we hear about the disturbing case of Manga1 collector Christopher Handley’s prosecution and guilty plea (disappointing the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund) for violating the 2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” The maximum sentence is 15 years. It’s likely that Handley pled that down significantly.2 What did he possess to get him in so much trouble? Depictions of cartoon children being sexually abused.3

Some call him sick for collecting such things. Some feel he should be locked up. They feel that sick things should be prohibited. What is this really a case about? Sexuality? Pedophilia? Puritanism? Regardless, there has been an uproar in the comic book community, and the point I made last December is being reiterated.4 My “underage” stick-figure sex depiction (daring someone to prosecute me) has been, in a variety of ways, repeated.5

Where’s the victim? The ink? The paper? Are the prosecutors the type of people who believe that fictional characters have feelings or rights? And why isn’t everyone who has a copy of Nabokov’s Lolita (in book or movie form, or, heck, is there a graphic novel?) currently being prosecuted? Heck, why isn’t the government clamping down on Amazon and Barnes & Noble for selling both artistic and literary depictions of underage sex, rape, and torture? If you think it doesn’t exist, if you think it’s not purchasable by the general public, perhaps you’re the myopic kind of person who would cheer to see Handley thrown in jail while you simultaneously forgive the Catholic Church for harboring men who actually stuck their penises in the mouths and anuses of the innocent boys in their care.

Was that statement too obscene for you? Funny, because it really happened to real children by real priests (and lots of other people who don’t even know what Manga is). Why on earth would a man like Handley, who merely possessed drawings of things you don’t like, be subjected to more years in prison than the men who perform the acts you cannot bear to read upon REAL CHILDREN? That, not Handley, is what is disgusting in this society and world. Perhaps if Handley suddenly found Jesus he would be treated with real justice in a nation that touts its freedom of thought while failing to practice what it preaches.

Worth reading is the BoingBoing post about Handley’s unfortunate situation. Also some of the comments are right on target, and I’m going to quote a few of my favorites right here:

-verde-

Thought Police at the door sir:

-Have you ever in your head pictured an infant being raped?

-No.

-Not even now that we brought up the subject?

-Well, mmm I guess so.

-Could you come with us?

-spazzm-

And who exactly decides what is artistic or immoral?

Erotica is artistic, porn is immoral, smut is illegal.
Erotica is what excites me, porn is what excites you, smut is what excites them.

-anonymous-

One of the questions I have is why the assumption is that such content serves the sole purpose of titillation or arousal for the reader. Yes, its principle intent may be that, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the reader views it that way. I have books of Toshio Saeki’s work that I have brought back from Europe in the last ten years (and not without concern they would be confiscated at customs or worse). His work is *extremely* difficult to look at, and often incorporates children in sexual situations with adults. I do not find this at all arousing, and in fact, I find it shocking and disturbing. But I find his work incredibly beautiful, challenging and it inspires me to ask questions of myself as I look at it. So, where is that part of it? We must be allowed to examine the work of others that we ourselves may not agree with or even like…And I don’t want to live in a world where we’re not allowed to express even the darkest parts of our psyche…which no one is above. Some just keep it to themselves better than others.

Spare the whole “it inspires others to act”. Pete Townsend has a quote about that.

Then there’s that whole problem of suppressing thoughts and artistic expression. You know. That kinda poses ongoing problems. Telling people what they can / can’t think / express / consider doesn’t really work so great.

And, I highly agree with what was said earlier about cultural misunderstandings related to the taboo depiction of pubic hair making these characters appear to be children.

This is tragic. Very scary, very sad that he pled guilty without proper counsel. (I’m a mid-30’s white female, btw).

-anonymous-

Wow. I guess I better get ready for prison. I drew a picture of myself having sex with a cartoon girl (…after cutting her cartoon head off). By this standard, I’m guilty of sex crimes against children. I didn’t even get to “play doctor” as a kid. :(

If we really wanted to protect children, the US Catholic Church should be (temporarily) shut down and have all the clergy FBI checked and registered (fingerprints and DNA, you pervy bastards). Let’s start with the real criminals. Remember the psychologist in Happiness who was a pedophile? He jerked himself off to a male teen magazine in the back of his car (one of my all-time favorite cringe comedy moments). Those are the PEOPLE you should be worried about having pictures fuel their desire. It won’t be the loli.

I am a victim of child sexual abuse in two ways. I was abused as a teen, and my first attempt at intercourse was destroyed by my adult partner’s sobs of physical and psychological pain. She had been raped as a young girl. I carried that crushing guilt with me for several years after that.

Show me comics/drawings of someone’s fantasy/nightmare of raping and killing children, I may enjoy it. I may abhor it. I might fantasize about killing the person who made it. I might masturbate to it and cry afterward. In the privacy of my home and in my mind, I should be able to do anything I want with it.

Should I go to jail for thoughts?

In the meantime, I’m going to be renaming all of my folders “midget porn.”

-Redsquares-

In other news, millions arrested for owning copies of Gauguin’s works and early sketches.

I’d hate to see what happens to Scheile collectors.

God dammit, under this sort of law, my paper on Bellmer I wrote for art history is enough to throw most of that class in jail. Dude drew bisected nude girls, in a clearly sexualized nature. Damn good drawings, aesthetically and technically: well done, good composition, and were done to fuck with the Nazis to boot, but still… what does that prove?

It’s obvious you are a sick fuck, no matter what the hell you do. Someone, somewhere, is against it for the pure purpose of being against it, the only question is: can they convince others to be against it too?

-blueelm-

What a strange situation. It was my understanding that the posession of photographic child pornography was illegal because it encouraged the assault and mistreatment of the children in the picture. In other words it is documentation of abuse.

It is a strange and tough argument about manga and I don’t know exactly how I feel, but while our children are fetishised to a large degree in the US there is a distinction between a predatory pedophile, your nasty uncle, and people who collect drawings of little girls being split in half by squid with hardware. I’m not sure that the latter influences the former, as the person molesting one’s child is more likely to be a good friend or spouse than a sexually-frustrated comic collector.

I think the Gacey clown of pain model sticks in people’s heads, but remember that he actually interacted with kids… not drawings of them. Secondly while we may be stigmatizing our kids by putting them in beauty pageants and American Apparel ads, the objective of some one who compulsively rapes small children is not to worship the adult-like beauty of a little girl but rather to have sex with her because it fufuls a compulsive need. As far as sympathy for them, I’m not sure about these teach-a-lesson type laws, but I see no problem with confining a serious enough offender from the rest of society, but some one with some drawings? Really?

By the same token it makes me sad that there is probably some one who has actually raped a little girl who will serve less jailtime than this guy will for having some troubling drawings. As far as the drawings, as an artist, I can’t help but think that these things must be tolerated.

Okay, that’s enough for now. Check out the BoingBoing comment thread and KOS for a lot more on both sides of the issue.

If you have some extra money, donate it to CBLDF. If you know someone who is about to get in trouble for possessing cartoons (or a book, etc.), refer the person to CBLDF and the ACLU.

  1. “Comics and print cartoons (sometimes also called komikku コミック), in the Japanese language and conforming to the style developed in Japan in the late 20th century.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga [<]
  2. Here’s a link via Wired of his actual plea agreement. I think he screwed himself. [<]
  3. I’m sure that statement will get some unwanted Google hits to my blog. [<]
  4. If you missed it, the argument was about Lisa Simpson, the cartoon character, being depicted in sexual situations, and a law in Australia was being applied. My earlier article also referred to the U.S. Protect Act and related laws that have arisen in the Handley case. [<]
  5. No, I’m not taking credit for it, but I did post it in December, damnit! [<]

Police Hunt for Boy Fleeing Diet and Exercise

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

Forces nationwide on alert for mom, son who are on the run.
obese
(Image is ubiquitous, represents but does not depict child in question)

Health and faith clashed in the courtroom, with police on the lookout for a Minnesota mother who fled with her obese 13-year-old son rather than consent to a diet and exercise program.

A court-ordered BMI examination on Monday showed that Danny Hoosier is severely obese, with a score of 43, and that he would likely die from the symptoms of obesity if he did not receive physical and diet therapy.

Before she fled, Caileen Hoosier, a Roman Catholic, told a judge that she wished to treat her son’s obesity with spiritual healing methods advocated by an American Spaniard religious group known as the Nameless Band.

Danny has severe childhood obesity, a highly curable form of obesity when treated with a regimen of diet and exercise. But the teen and his parents rejected the regimen after a single workout session followed by having to eat broccoli. The boy’s mother said that exercise and putting healthy substances in the body violates the family’s religious convictions.

Authorities are alerting the public to report the mother and son’s whereabouts, if seen, and that they have frequently been sighted at McDonald’s drive-thrus. 1

Seems silly, no matter how you look at it, eh?2

Isn’t this mother’s action equivalent to post-partum abortion, or should parents be allowed to “care for” their children in whatever manner they feel appropriate? What do the Libertarians say about this?

In addition, isn’t it curious how it seems that religion gets a free pass in many aspects of law and society (e.g., tax breaks, requiring monotheistic belief for public office, hate crimes based on religion, general inability to criticize religion, lighter sentences), but when society doesn’t agree with someone’s specific actions, it condemns those actions, even if they were motivated by sincere religious conviction?

Broken down, here’s what it means: Religion does not give you a free pass. Accepted religion does. That means someone’s dancing a jig on the grave marked “R.I.P. First Amendment.”

Speaking of the First Amendment, does this case threaten to violate it in the reverse respect? In other words, by not allowing someone to practice their religion as they see fit (no matter how kooky we perceive it), isn’t that “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? Heck, perhaps the First Amendment does need an overhaul. It obviously doesn’t take into account all the wacky religions out there, and all the wacky people who do crazy things in the name of their religion. What the Supreme Court and others say is, “Oh, the founders didn’t mean absolutely no prohibitions! There has to be some reasonable guideline to keep the kooks from doing really crazy stuff.” Hmm, I wonder who establishes those guidelines. Could it be… mainstream Christians?

Either we need to eliminate reading between the First Amendment’s lines, risking religious justification for all sorts of heinous acts, or we need to eliminate religion as a justification for any action. In other words, if an act is harmful, it’s harmful. If it’s not, it’s not. Religious conviction should not be able to adjust that fact.

UPDATE:

Believe it or not, my satire has manifested in reality.

From CNN:
Authorities arrest mom for medical neglect of 555-pound teen

South Carolina authorities have located a 555-pound teenager and his mother, who faces a charge of violating a custody order, police said Thursday.

obese-reality
Alexander Deundray Draper, 14, “is possibly at a stage of critical health risk,” social services said.

Alexander Deundray Draper, 14, of Travelers Rest, South Carolina, and his mother, Jerri Althea Gray, were located at about 4:30 p.m. near a laundromat in Baltimore, Maryland, by the Baltimore County Sheriff’s Office, said Matt Armstrong, a spokesman for the Greenville County Sheriff’s Office in Greenville, South Carolina.

“The understanding was that the individual was of the weight where it was decided by medical authorities that he needed treatment that was not being provided for by his mother,” Armstrong said.

Earlier in the day officials said the boy “is possibly at a stage of critical health risk.”

Gray was supposed to appear in family court Tuesday with her son and failed to do so, the sheriff’s office said. During the family court hearing, the boy was ordered into state custody because of medical neglect, as well as his mother’s failure to appear. The Department of Social Services then contacted the sheriff’s office, authorities said.

The warrant said Gray was served with papers Monday and told to report to court for a hearing in which the department would seek state custody of Draper. “The defendant has avoided the custody proceeding and has concealed the child,” the warrant says.

Wow. Or is this more satire? How can anyone be sure?

  1. Yes, this is satire. Yes, I have to say it. The real subjects of this insanity are Colleen and Daniel Hauser. Daniel has Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a highly curable form of cancer when treated with chemo and radiation. His parents did, in fact, reject chemo after only a single treatment, and now mother and son are on the run, and the court has issued an arrest warrant for her arrest. [<]
  2. Note that my perhaps even more subtle satire here deals with the fact that in the real case, the mother said that putting toxic substances in the body violates the family’s religious convictions. When I read the story, I wondered how much fast food the kid had eaten (and how much more he’ll be eating on the run). We’re constantly putting toxic substances in our bodies. Quite a bit of it is natural. What the mother really meant to say is that under circumstances of her choosing, she’ll allow her god to kill her child, because that’s what Jesus would do. Or Abraham. Or someone ancient. She shouldn’t interfere. Funny how she still manages to find a way to ingest food. You know, if God wanted her to survive, she wouldn’t have to eat food at all, or take any action whatsoever to preserve her own life. Fucking hypocrite. [<]

Carrie Prejean is Wet

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

Carrie Prejean really is Miss USA. She is a roving social microcosm of America – right down from her narrow mentality to her capped teeth and breast implants. She exemplifies what makes the USA so great.

Better yet, Carrie Prejean is a hypocrite, which makes her excessively American. She mindlessly espouses being a Christian without having any real clue about what it means to be a Christian. The Christian brand has become so muddled that the marketing of it is a bit tricky. You have to stick a wet finger in the air to see which way Jesus blows today. Speaking of wet fingers, Carrie, who was afraid she didn’t have the assets to become Miss USA and subsequently sought external funding to increase her asset base, wasn’t too ashamed of her pre-adulterated temple such that she had somebody take photos of her unadorned self. Still, there were improvements that could be made.

Maybe Carrie was following the adage of “God helps those who help themselves”. Her tributes to God were not of silver and gold resting at the steps of a local place of worship, but instead Carrie used silver and gold to adorn herself since every man’s (or woman’s) body is a temple. Why not carry around the tribute for the rest of her life instead of dumping it some place where no one can see it? That’s our Carrie!

Of course, hypocrisy knows no bounds. Even having many examples walk across the stage before her, Carrie threw caution to the wind and casually forgot that she had already exposed herself to the cameras before her appearance as Miss California USA. She decided to ask for help in building her tribute. Californians (or in this case at least a few), so ready and willing to help Carrie become the model California woman, cheerily gave up their gold and silver in order to help her build the tribute necessary to appease her god. After the revelations of nude photos, those few Californians who chipped in to increase Carrie’s assets have now decided that she didn’t properly represent the Miss California USA pageant and they may strip her of her title. Really now, can American hypocrisy get any better than this?

California has its panties in a twist right now. A majority of them voted to make it illegal for same-sex couples to marry, so Carrie’s wet-finger-in-the-air told her to state the popular conservative Christian response that gays can’t marry, but she didn’t realize that Jesus was blowing from different directions the day the nude photos were revealed. Ah, Carrie, when you wet your finger your mind is in another place, I know. It happens.

Carrie’s actions represent the best of hypocritical America, and her mind represents the worst of a marginalized America. So, I hereby proudly announce that Carrie Prejean is Miss USA 2009!