Racist Jesus
Tuesday, February 5th, 2008But no, really, the story about the Good Samaritan is actually racist.
John McCain is a Sniveling, Pandering Dobson-Boner
Saturday, October 13th, 2007Apparently, John McCain now thinks the Constitution establishes the United States as a Christian nation, even though it explicitly establishes a nation of no religion. What a fucktard.
Dem Jebus Bones
Thursday, March 1st, 2007The Times has a blog post about James Cameron’s forthcoming documentary about finding the tomb of some dude named Jesus, his brother, James, his son, Matthew, and his wife, Mary.
First, from someone who doesn’t believe this Jesus guy (in the Bible) even existed, I can only ask the obvious: How do you prove this is that Jesus? I can’t really think of anything except a preponderance of circumstantial evidence that makes the probability higher. I don’t see any here. The article itself seems to have some logical flaws along the same line.
It reads that if we could confirm kinship between Jesus and James, we could prove there was no Immaculate Conception, and if we could prove the Mary and Jesus in the tomb were not related, then they were definitely man and wife. But it all only begs the question: Is this the Jesus Christianity talks about? Where’s that proof? God wanna offer us up some DNA for kinship analysis?
What’s funnier, though, is the response from the Church:
“Every Christian knows that Jesus the son of God and man died and rose again on Easter Sunday,” a New York Archdiocese spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, told The New York Post on Sunday. “No alleged DNA test or Hollywood film is going to change that.”
Apparently, no actual verifiable truth is going to change that either, considering the defensive tone, but that’s beside the point. Are you catching this embarrassingly blatant reversal of faith and reason here? So telling. “Every Christian knows?” Doesn’t that defeat the requirement of faith? Even if not, how do they know? Revelation, the authority of the Church, assurance that Jesus sounds more real than Zeus. And “alleged” DNA testing? I’m pretty sure that whether they actually did DNA testing is quite verifiable. It’s what the DNA tells us that is the problem: It tells us diddly shit. It seems this spokesman is implicitly accepting the validity of these archaeological findings and Cameron’s claims and simply responding with, “Nuh-uh. Your mom is ugly.”
The president of the National Clergy Council, the Reverend Bob Schenk commented in similar fashion:
According to Cameron, his film is no mere speculation, but historical fact. By claiming the remains of Jesus returned to dust along with other members of his family, the Hollywood filmmaker is denying the divinity of the Son of God and his victory over death. Cameron clearly intended to drive a stake into the heart of Christianity, since without the Resurrection, Jesus was only a mortal man.
The author of the blog post notes, quite astutely, that the remains of Jesus’s body could only actually disprove Jesus’s Ascension into Heaven. I know the Ascension is part of the articles of faith listed in the Nicean Creed, but is it really necessary to remain consistent in this little bubble of theology? In a world where God forgets to pull out (or use a jimmy hat), it seems perfectly conceivable that Jesus could have been crucified on Good Friday, risen from the dead on Easter Sunday, gone to let his disciples know he was okay after all, and then lived a long happy life being married with kids. Perhaps Resurrection was his official retirement from Son-of-God duties. I can imagine the following at the famous fish-eating, nail-hole-poking meal: “Hey, Thomas; I really am alive. But I’m gonna go hook up with that fine piece of whore ass and have her pop me out some progeny now, so, while it’s been great knowing y’all and literally dying for you, I think I done my part. Feel free to tell the natives I floated up into the clouds or what the fuck; I’d like some privacy, yo. Peace out. Go start a church or something.”
Santorum’s Theocracy
Sunday, May 11th, 2003Jacob Sullum’s article in Reason Online, called “In the Bedroom”, is right on.
He digs down to the fundamentals—almost. Santorum didn’t make any of the important moral, legal, and psychological distinctions between homosexual sex, adultery, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality. Santorum also revealed his own agenda and morally repulsive views when he dichotomized the sin and the sinner, or in his words, “It’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions.” And Santorum’s later proclamation that the government has the right “to limit individuals’ wants and passions” is frightening.
On the other hand, Sullum fails to take Santorum to task for the real issues of political freedom and the scope of government. It’s socially risky to proclaim that the government has no right to tell a man and his mother that they don’t have the right to have consensual sex—even if it is psychologically damaging—but it’s still a fact. The government derives no right to prohibit the actions of any consenting adults—no matter their numbers, familial relation, or genders—providing such actions are done at no one else’s expense.
Sullum also reminds us, very importantly, that the GOP is still the party of social oppression: Santorum hasn’t paid any political price for his comments.
I would go on to say that this is yet more evidence that the GOP has never really changed. Political pressure has made them accept women and racial minorities, and political pressure—not reason—will have to force them to accept homosexuality.
Dealing with Life
Tuesday, September 10th, 2002Existence is sort of a dull dream right now. It’s as if some lingering and fundamental ambivalence for living—for dealing with reality—for being responsible for making myself has come to fruition. I am constantly bombarded by contradictory notions of and feelings toward what life is, but I hardly notice any more. I would guess that I’ve been fighting myself over my responsibility to live for a long time.
