On Hate, Insensitivity, Dissention and the Constitution

Let’s just lay it out on the table; I fully support the right to hate. Yep, that’s right, I am coming out for the freedom to express hate for anything, anyone, anytime no matter how irrational or how unjust. If you don’t share that perspective check your citizenship

By now you may be thinking: “Hey, the camel has been grazing on loco weed. Where’s he going with this?” Bear with me, this trip won’t take long.

Fred Phelps is a homophobe and the poster boy for hate. Everything he stands for, every sign he holds up, every word out of his mouth and those of his followers is pure hate which he justifies with Judeo-Christian scripture. As far as I am concerned, he’s a “True” Christian. It’s not illegal to be a hater, it’s a right. Fred Phelps is a despicable human being, and I fully defend this man’s right to do what he does because it is protected under the 1st amendment.

Irrespective of on what side one may come down on a postion right to express ones feelings is unalienable. Neither has a scintilla more right than the other under the law of the land. As long as speech does not become “action” that violates the law or impedes the rights of all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution, it’s all good.

I hate the concept of eminent domain. But I accept that it is constitutional. I’ll even say that I understand and accept that it has value to society as a whole. But there are times, conditions, where the right of the government to take private property and use it for the public welfare is ill advised and despicable. When those instances occur, I dissent and express my distain with vigor to my representatives. Not to over turn the law as a whole, that's not my objective. I speak my mind to appeal to those who can see beyond the lawfulness and into the insensitivity, injustice, of a particular eminent domain decision.

Bottom line is this: dissention with the opinions, beliefs, positions or actions of an individual or group -- even though those opinions, beliefs or actiona are totally within the law and protected by the Constitution -- is not only legal, it’s just, ethical, and a fundamental American right. To remain silent when you are aroused by the unfairness or insensitivity of an act or speech, even those fully protected by the Constitution, implies agreement with and support for that act or speech with which you dissent.

I’m an American; I’ll stand for all of your 1st amendment rights. But don’t expect me not to let you know how I feel about the way in which you exercise them. Hear that Fred? Hear that Glenn? Hear that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf?

God Does Rehab: Seeks to save his image and fan base

“Rehab” the last stop before the slammer and/or complete rejection by the public for so many of today’s celebrities who live lives of gross excess, self indulgence and idiocy. As followers and believers drift away from worshipping him, recognizing the famed crazy behavior as something not exactly worthy of belief-- it was just a matter of time before the Judeo-Christian God, aka “Í Am,” aka “Yahweh,” aka “G-D,” finally broke down and saw the handwriting on the wall.

I had the opportunity to interview God just before he entered Behavioral Health of the Palm Beaches, Inc. rehab center. The following is a verbatim transcript of our conversation, albeit, some of his most vicious epithets and rants been deleted to spare my more sensitive readers’ sensibilities.

Hump: Before we start, is it ok if I just call you God?

God: I don’t give a Babylonian baby’s crushed skull what you call me, as long as you don’t call me late for a genocide.

Hump: Ah, a not so veiled reference to Psalms 137:9, I take it.

God: Oh, you’re one of my readers then eh? I suppose you want me to autograph your copy.

Hump: Yes, I’ve read your work; and no- no autograph required. I just wanted to ask you about your committing yourself to rehab. I hear it’s about your anger issues.

God: Oh, that. Yeah, my PR folks thought it might be a good idea. They say a few weeks in anger management rehab would be good for my image. Frankly, it’s all angel shit.

Hump: You don’t sound so committed to the idea. I mean, let’s face it; your anger has been renown for some time…like 3300 years.

God: It’s all been blown out of proportion by the media. Those heathen scum will do anything to make me look bad.

Hump: Well, most of what they attribute to you is in your own book. You know, destroying almost every living thing with a flood; killing the 1st born of Egypt; massacring non-Hebrew tribes down to the last child; demanding people be stoned to death for this and that …lots of other stuff.

God: Hey, fuck you! That was the old me. Once I became schizophrenic and developed my Jesus personality I was cool, everybody knows that!

Hump: So they say. But Jesus/You said he came to set father against son, mother against daughter; that he/you didn’t come to bring peace; that when he/you return it will be with a sword in your mouth; and then there’s that condemning good folks to eternal torture for not believing in you thing ….

God: Yeah, yeah, yeah… spare me the lecture, Sugar Tits.

Hump: Sugar tits?

God: I picked that up from Mel, one of my most devoted followers. Catchy huh? Anyway, he went to rehab for his anger issues, so my people figure if I do it and appear contrite, appear to turn over a new leaf so to speak, maybe not so many of my believers will be abandoning ship. I’ve been having a few problems filling the pews lately.

Hump: Wouldn’t it be more effective if you appeared in the sky over every nation on Earth simultaneously; tell folks you’re sorry for all the bad stuff you did; that you won’t send them to this hell place you created for them… just pedophile ministers and priests, those that protected them, evangelical ministers and faith healers, Fred Phelps, and mass murderers; that it wasn’t anyone’s fault but your own that people didn’t believe in you; and it’s all cool if folks decide they prefer not to worship you?

God: Are you fuckin nuts? If I did that what would be the point of being a Supreme Being? I might as well tell old peanut breath Ganesh or that doper Vishnu they can take over as my successor. Fuck No! I didn’t spend 6 days creating the universe, and an eternity developing my image just to wimp out of a tried and true fear strategy.

Hump: So, this rehab thing is a total sham; just like when Mel Gibson or Ted Haggard, or Lindsay Lohan checked in?

God: Sham??… Hahaha.. Is the Pope a pedophile enabling ex-Nazi? Of course it’s a sham. But sham is such a harsh word. I prefer “Act” of God. Get it… "act," acting… By the way, you repeat that in print and when I get out of rehab I’ll create a new incurable childhood disease in your name. Maybe you’d like to see a few million 3rd world babies born with humps on their backs. Or maybe deformed kidneys.

Hump: You’d do that? To innocent children? Just to punish me?

God: What part of my book didn’t you understand? Now, fuck off -- here comes my driver. I’ve got a 3:45 full body massage at the rehab and I’m expecting a “happy ending”, if you catch my drift.

The Muslim Threat and that Damn Mosque: Has the Hump Gone Rogue?

On facebook I posted my perspective on the NYC Mosque, and the Muslim threat in general. My position on Islam shouldn’t be a surprise to my readership. I was rather clear about it in my book -- the foreword, chapters, and afterword. My facebook friends, good folks all, largely disagreed with my position. Here's the link to that conversation: http://www.facebook.com/Dromedary.Hump

Instead of responding to their reasoned comments on facebook, I’ve decided to post my reply to their opposing and more accepting positions here.
---------------------------------

All, thanks for your responses. I fully understand your perspective and hesitation to adopt my position. We can respectfully disagree. But if you look at history, which hopefully we all see as prologue to the future, in any country where Islam takes root it becomes a stand alone and ultimately predominant force even where it is a minority within the native population. The Quran is very specific about how they are to interact with "people of the book" (i.e. Xtians, and Jews...never mind atheists), and it isn't grounded in tolerance. Thus, I don't think assuming their degree of radicalism is no more prevalent than that of radical Xtians or Jews is valid.

Muslims want from us something they do not want to give in return. They demand Sharia law. They view free speech only from their own perspective, thus blasphemy as a justification for unbridled violence or death. They see Western accommodation as a sign of weakness and acquiescence, not one of brotherhood, tolerance and equality. They have no central authority, thus one cannot negotiate with, reason with, or hold accountable a single entity or person.

The hateful things in the Quran (and Hadith) are as evil as those in Bible. HOWEVER, the difference is the vast majority of the followers of Islam, unlike Christians, still fully endorse those things. They are 600 -700 years behind Xtian evolution into modernity. That’s a major difference. As a Jew, atheist, or pagan try reasoning with a Christian of the 14th century, much less your local representative of the Inquisition. Turkey, and Syria over whelmingly Muslim countries, have already passed laws to try and curtail Islamic take over of government, and the rise in radicalism. They see the threat. We should too.

Most of you know I'm no Teabagger; I despise Palin; I’m as far from a Right Wing Religious Nut as one can get;. I'm an Independent, a liberal/moderate, and an Obama supporter. That on this issue I am a bedfellow of the Teabagging imbeciles embarrasses me, but as a student of history to deny the handwriting on the wall is a prescription for disaster.

Finally, while I abhor references to Nazi Germany in any discussion (there's a name for doing that which slips my mind,) the Jews of the 1930's denied time and again the handwriting on that wall. It wasn't until too late that they realized the insidiousness of the Dem. Socialists and a large portion of the non-Nazi German people who turned their backs on what their government did to their Jewish neighbors. I for one won't simply assume Muslim radicals will be kept in line by moderates. Radical Islam is growing, recent instances of American born Muslims committing acts of terror are evidence of this. I won't ignore what has happened to other cultures over centuries and what’s going on in Europe where some countries have a 20% Muslim minority. I won't be a like a complacent German Jew denying what stares me in the face until it’s too late, even though it may carry smile and a self proclaimed label of "religion of peace." One does that at their own peril.

I am not an alarmist, I am a realist. I’m not paranoid on the subject; one isn’t paranoid if there really are people who have stated they are trying to hurt you, or truncate your freedoms, or change your way of life. To hijack a phrase: "Never Again."

CS Lewis: Defender of the Faith, Deluded, Deceiver, or Douche?

CS Lewis was an author and Christian defender of the faith in the early 20th century. Famous for his Chronicles of Narnia, he was well educated and scholarly … and the classic Christian apologist.

I say classic because his arguments for a “Real Morality” (i.e. God given morality), and his famous “Trilemma“ (we know it as the “Jesus was either Liar, Lunatic or Lord” argument ) are so vapid, so fallacious, so easily refutable though research, reason and observation that only a Christian could perceive them as intellectual or worthy of repeating.

Although raised in a religious family Lewis claims he became atheist at the age of 15, only to find Christianity, again, in his later years. But here’s the thing: he claimed that as an atheist he was “very angry with God for not existing". Now think about that. Can you conceive of yourself, or any one who rejects the concept of a god as man made fallacy as being “angry with God for not existing”? It is oxymoronic at best, patently absurd at worst. Atheist at fifteen? Dubious.

Nevertheless, Christians love to quote Lewis, throw his name around, pull examples from his writings, implore us to read his works and use him as some kind of proof of religion’s veracity. After all an “atheist” becoming a Christian makes him the darling of the religiously enamored. It’s a validation of their belief. I would also venture that the insipid and hackneyed platitude “You’re just angry at God” that Christians love to throw at atheists is probably attributable to CS Lewis’ self described anger with god as an “atheist.” Now there’s a contribution to Christian apologetics.

As an example of a Lewis quote that makes any thinking person wince is this:

“If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this.”

Two things are obvious to anyone with a modicum of intellectual awareness:
1) It is unsupportable opinion in an attempt to establish that strong belief in the afterlife has motivated the best contributions to this civilization.
2) The premise is not intended to be challenged, researched, and evaluated because the examples that disprove it / falsify it are vast.

But that doesn’t matter to believers. They take that kind of statement at face value…as a “Truth.” They don’t think for a moment “What degree of belief in the afterlife did Copernicus have? Did Dr. Christiaan Barnard have? Charles Darwin?” They were Christians all, but not one sliver of historical and corroborated evidence exists that establishes their belief, or degree of belief, in the afterlife. Indeed, there are many examples of hideous Christians’ words, acts, and legacies whose thoughts of the “next world” occupied their minds constantly. Martin Luther comes to mind, and his contribution to anti-Semitism is legend. Perhaps that’s the kind of contribution Lewis admired.

And what about reform Jews and non-believers who have contributed so much to this world that the list would fill volumes; they who never held belief in the afterlife? How does that reconcile with being “ineffective” in this world with no belief in the next? Is it only those Christians who have lesser or no belief in an afterlife that are ineffective in this world –all other believers and non-believers being unaffected by their rejection of the afterlife myth? Please.

Yet Christians elevate CS Lewis to cult figure status; an articulate icon of Christian “Truth;” the poster boy for defender of the faith; a man of letters who has tasted the bitterness of godlessness, rejected it, and come back into light of Jesus’ goodness. In reality, Lewis was a religious hack playing to an audience who are as willing to swallow his shallow apologetics whole as they are to accept without question virgin births or dead things coming to life.

Apparently it doesn’t take much to be a literary hero of Christians; just say you were an atheist once, then blow smoke up their collective asses.

Christians against the Jedi religion and Smurfs: Maybe they fear the competition

Recently the surge in people claiming to embrace the Jedi Religion (the Star Wars spiritual invention) was publicized in a number of media reports. The following is a verbatim comment made by a Christian in response to this phenomenon.

"Jedi Knights? We have traded reality for fantasy, the Kingdom of God for Disneyworld, smurfs for angels. I think I will stick with Jesus, the Son of the Living God, the undisputed, historically based Way, Truth, and Life, whose resurrection was witnessed by hundreds, whose martyrs number in the thousands, and followers in the millions over 2000 years. Any of these deceived Jedi warriors willing to lay down their lives for their “leader.” Or do they have one? No wonder the world is such a mess with people’s pop (poop) culture “religions.” Give me Truth any day. The consequences are more predictable. " Mark H.

Naturally, I couldn’t let Mark’s comment go uncorrected / unchallenged:

Mark,

To paraphrase Yoda: “Many statements of fallaciousness it is that you make.” Not one is supportable with objective evidence. Albeit, by substituting "Allah" for God, "Paradise" for Kingdom, and "Allah's last Prophet Mohammed" for Jesus, ostensibly everything you wrote could be expressed by a Muslim.

Your acceptance of Christianity is as much based on fantasy as any other religion, past or present. Your acceptance and deification of Jesus is as valid as any other mythical man-god , force, or creature past or present. That it happens to be YOUR fantasy, YOUR creature is why you cannot discern the difference.

Jesus is "undisputed"? He’s disputed by Hindus, Muslims, Jews, wiccans, animists, and every other religion on the planet, plus non-believers which combined represent 2/3rds of the Earth's population. It's only "undisputed" by you and your fellow Christians.

The resurrection was witnessed by Hundreds? The Bible would have mentioned eye witnesses had there been any. If you were alluding to observation of a post death Jesus, it is undocumented anywhere except by the writers of the Bible, none of whom themselves were eye witnesses to a post death Jesus' appearance; they were simply passing on hearsay… except for Paul “the recruiter” and deluded screenwriter for the faith. There are no other independent documented sources that attest to seeing the resurrection itself or a post death Jesus alive out of the so called "hundreds" of witnesses you claim.

Dying for a myth and a lie is rather common. That the Holocaust claimed 6 million Jews doesn't attest to their faith being "True." That 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam doesn't endorse the subsequently proven error of the "Domino Theory." That cultists drink cyanide tainted Kool Aide, or otherwise kill themselves for their belief or at the behest of their leaders doesn't make their belief "true." If it did, Muslims have as much claim to truth by number of martyrs as do Christians. How telling that you’d be more generous and give the Jedi religion more respect and credence if some number of its followers would just die for their belief. . This fascination and obsession with dying as a validation of belief is rather peculiar to the Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity.

As for “giving [you] the Truth." it's evident from your attributing the world's problems to a lack of shared belief in your preferred religious delusion that you neither want nor can handle the truth. Your Christian "Truth" ruled the civilized world during the Dark and Middle Ages; and my guess is you'd not have want to live during those times --especially if you were a Jew, a non-believer, a non-warrior or a serf.

Read more history; think more independently; question what you're taught; live life on your feet and not on your knees. Your contributions to society would be the better for it. May the Farce of Religion not be with you.

Those Damn Homos are Changing Word Definitions! Stop Them NOW!

Tony Perkins is the head of the Family Research Council. The organization is, to put it bluntly, Ultra Conservative, Ultra Christian, Ultra Homophobic. He and they would love nothing more than to see America ruled by cross wielding religious fanatics who’d replace the Constitution with the Bible, and make the Inquisition look like summer camp.

Recently Tony raged against the overturning of Prop 8 in California. He made these two statements:

"The fact that homosexuals prefer not to enter into marriages as historically defined does not give them a right to change the definition of what a 'marriage' is."

"FRC has always fought to protect marriage in America and will continue to do so by working with our allies to appeal this dangerous decision.
http://www.frc.org/newsroom/frc-criticizes-court-ruling-warns-against-the-roe-v-wade-of-same-sex-marriage

“Protect marriage”? Protect it from what exactly? My marriage doesn’t require his protection, whose does? I understand protecting children from clergy pedophiles, but how does one protect a word or concept from evolving, and why?

Like all religious extremists Tony is living in denial. The "historic definition" of any word in the English lexicon evolves. I suppose he’s still wringing his hands over the evolved “historic definition” of the word "gay." He and his ilk must have accepted it, since I don't hear any of them saying things like "I'm feeling quite gay today." I imagine they stay up nights bemoaning the evolution of the word “awful,” which once meant “deserving of awe.”

Sorry Tony, but just like language, cultural mores evolve. Women can now own property – historically & biblically they couldn't. People can’t own slaves – historically and biblically they could. Inter racial couples can now marry - historically they couldn't. Being gay, committing adultery, and working on the “Sabbath” is no longer punishable by death - historically & biblically it was. Inter racial marriage was once deemed to be in violation of God's plan. You'll get used to gay marriage, Tony, just like you've gotten used to, or at least grudgingly accepted, these other examples of cultural evolution..

I keep asking why religionists insist on forcing selected / cherry picked ancient Hebraic admonishments on society. How does the evolution away from these things directly negatively affect their lives, their freedoms? Why don't they rage just as much against people wearing mixed fiber clothes (Lev. 19:19), or boiling a kid goat in it's mother's milk (Exodus 23:14-19) and demand constitutional amendments to enforce them? In the absence of a satisfactory response the only answer I can come up with is hypocrisy and hate born of the religious virus.

But it doesn't matter. In 5 or 6 years gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states. And in 100 to 300 years the Christian churches will apologize for their homophobic hysteria , just like they apologized for Galileo's persecution, burning of heretics, the Inquisition, and the impact of Martin Luther's anti-Semitism on Europe. It just takes them that long to catch up to humanity.

Letter from an irate Christian to Eternal Earth-Bound Pets sets me straight.

Occasionally I receive letters from Christians antagonized by my Eternal Earth-Bound Pets post rapture pet rescue web business. The one I received last week is classic.

Dear Eternal Earth-Bound Pets, USA,

First off this is beyond dumb. after [sic] the rapture you wont be on earth [sic] you will be on [sic] hell. the [sic] earth [sic] will be given to God [?] and his believers (which you would know if you read a bible once in your life). Also God will give his believers what made them happy on earth [sic].

Our pets will be with us in heaven (so to make it clear your pets will be in heaven and you....wont [sic] be)i [sic] really am sorry that you HATE people who believe in SOMETHING so much that you have to do this. I think you need to read the Bible for one. Second off READ the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroble. It will change your thoughts i [sic] think somewhat.

from [sic]

Tara Gamet taragamet@gmail.com

p.s. watch the movie "All Dogs Go to Heaven" thanks

Not being one to ignore gross stupidity the following was sent in reply:

Dear Tara,

Thank you for your interest in our service.

As a student of religion, having read both the KJV and NIV; many other volumes on comparative religion, Biblical criticism, Christianity and Christian apologetics; and minored in religion (majored in psychology) in college -- my understanding of scripture is rather complete.

I interpret Christian doctrine as it is drawn from the Bible by mainstream Christian denominations, not from a 1989 animated cartoon which seems to be your preferred source of doctrine. You may want to consider the more established source.

The "Rapture" is not in fact Biblical, but an interpretation by a minority of Christian sects drawn from 1Thessalonians. Considering the exclusionary and hideous Christian doctrine that sends non-believers, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, indeed the majority of the planet to a place of eternal torture for simple non-belief in Jesus; the inventive idea of your pet gerbil and garter snake hobnobbing with Jesus while Anne Frank, Gandhi, and Jonas Salk burn in hell for eternity makes the already horrid Christian doctrine even more obscene a concept. But likely that irony is lost on you.

Nothing in the Bible describes heaven vis-à-vis its physical properties, environs, or "god providing" everything one wants. If you can find such Biblical chapter and verse I'd be delighted to see it. Some Christian sects like to invent their preferred image of heaven, or draw it from movies and imaginative Christian writers. That’s fine. But it’s all fabrication much like female or chubby little baby angels, which also are not supported by / mentioned in the Bible. This is all no doubt a shock to you.

As for "beyond dumb," let not your heart be troubled. The steady flow of income from pet loving Rapture believers more than compensates for any "dumbness" on the part of my staff, my clientele, or me.

On an unrelated note: I am curious as to why religionists insist on capitalizing certain words at random when they are in a letter writing religious fervor. Perhaps I’ll publish a research paper on the prose and grammar of religionists. I hope you don't mind that I'll be using your letter as an example of this inexplicable affectation.

If we can be of any service in the future please feel free to let us know.

My best to you,

Bart