Quetzalcoatl worked in mysterious ways - The Fall of the Duggars

Quetzalcoatl helped me because of a failure on my part. I couldn't. I just couldn't, no matter how hard I tried….produce even a single tear for Josh Duggar…or Jim Bob, Michelle and most of the ‘19 Kids and Counting’ siblings who seemingly were bred just to see how often Jim Bob and Michelle could have procreative sex. What sorrow I can spare is for the (at least) five girls who were molested by Josh over the course of two years and got the bum’s rush on justice. The Duggar parents have little to say about them, and apparently offered them virtually no solace after what their son did to them. It’s all about how “hurt” Jim Bob and Michelle are over the public’s reaction to Josh violating the girls twelve years ago. Since over a decade has passed (only because the Duggars did jack shit about it) we should let it go, and let them get on with their lives. Who cares what the girls experienced or how it affected their lives? According to Jim Bob’s interpretation of the Bible, the little girls should just keep their mouths shut, suck it up, accept blame for their immodesty (even while asleep), and continue working toward the ultimate goal of being an under-educated sperm repository capable of producing as many babies as one man, time and fate allow…education, career and equality be damned. Whatever you do girls, don’t aim high.

Bubble-headed bleach blond Megyn Kelly of Fox News will ‘interview’ them this Wednesday night and ask hard-hitting questions like “How do you cope with the meanies who make fun of your beliefs”?

And remember these Josh-endorsing clowns when it comes time to vote

It’s amazing how many people rushed to Josh’s, Jim Bob and Michelle’s defense. "Leave them alone, they say...he was just a kid...it happened 12 years ago...the family handled it in the best way...the Lord has forgiven him...there was never any need to involve law enforcement." They claim the attack on Josh is because he’s a Christian. One female writer white-washed the whole episode with “Josh was a creepy 14 year old boy. What he did was gross but it was taken care of by the people involved and everyone has moved on....12 years ago no less. I don't understand why we are calling him a child molester when he was a kid at the time, and he confessed and apologized!! There is a huge difference between what Josh Duggar did and what molesters and rapists do. Everyone here would probably be mortified if they had a light shining on their own nasty little secrets. People need to get a life.” I wonder what secrets that writer is still hiding. She thinks that what Josh did to his sisters was simply ‘gross’ and is different from what other molesters do. How does she know? What’s the criterion for determining real, (as opposed to juvenile) exploratory molestation? But according to her, it’s our fault. We didn't choose the right kind of life. We don’t have the high profile morality of the Duggars; therefore, we don’t have the right to comment on Josh avoiding justice for sexually molesting the girls. Besides, he apologized and God has forgiven him, although no one explains how they are certain of that. (I have to come clean about my own brushes with law enforcement at this point. Three times since 1970; I have been stopped for speeding violations, one for going 14 miles an hour over the posted speed limit.) If I confess to god that I am an imperfect human being, will god just forgive me too, without any belief in Jesus or a holy spirit, absolving me of all sin and making me whole in the process?

            You know things for the Duggars are completely messed up when even June Shannon of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo fame sounds like the voice of reason when she weighs in with "I read that the Duggar family said this happening with their son brought them closer to God and each other. So they're saying it's OK to have family touch time? Hell no."

I'm beginning to think that when the Duggars say they got closer to God, what they meant was G.O.D...Good Old Denial.

Here’s the problem…if you or I had done what Josh admitted to, and it was discovered, a lot worse would have happened to us…like immediate retribution, juvenile home if not prison time, severe fines, sexual predator identification, DCS case worker visits on a weekly basis until we reached 18, social stigmatization, and more. But because the Duggars have a popular TV show, and are under the protective umbrella of “terribly-persecuted and misunderstood” fundamentalist Christianity, what they allowed to go unchecked and virtually unpunished in their household is seen as nobody’s business. The innocent girls involved got no sympathy or counseling for Josh violating them. It has been reported that they were given a one sheet sexual abuse counseling exercise to complete, basically blaming them, and that’s it. That’s the limit of what Jim Bob and Michelle did for their daughters.

                         Would you trust your kid to his care?

For Josh…ooooh, the severity of the punishment! He was sent to an acquaintance to do some home remodeling work for a summer, and then given a stern ‘talking to’ by a family friend in law enforcement who knew a thing or two about sexual exploitation…because he is currently serving 56 years on child pornography charges. And yet, Christian defenders think that was enough. Josh learned his lesson and we who disagree should get a life, get off Josh’s back, and allow him to resume using his TV fame to bash LGBTs because they are a threat to children, push for the elimination of birth control, stop all abortions no matter the circumstances, promote abstinence only sex education, and cramming his brand of Christian values down everyone’s throat. When a Christian says they get their morals from the bible or from God…what they mean is that God encourages this stuff, like the Genesis account of Lot and his daughters after they fled Sodom and Gomorrah. The nut never falls far from the tree. The Duggars are just being true Christians.

                      Sometimes sacrifices must be made

            Now comes the confession…I couldn't resist. I really couldn't. See, when I recently saw Josh promote his toxic strain of Christianity, and read about how Michelle Duggar had lent her voice for a robo-call across Arkansas to defeat a transgender proposal…I prayed and I got my wish. What I did was offer a supplication to the ancient Mesoamerican god Quetzalcoatl that he would exact revenge on the Duggars, starting with that smug piece of human trash Josh…and darned if the ol’ feathered serpent-god didn't come through. Normally Quetzalcoatl requires a fresh, bloody heart as a token of faith, but he was appeased by tearing the heart out of the Duggars instead, Sweet justice that finally brought a tear to my eye, and proved that prayer does work…well, sometimes.

Jeb is as Dumb as Dubya - Why we don't need ANOTHER Bush!

            To paraphrase the old “pants/fat” joke…does the last name make him look like an idiot?

“I am asked sometimes whether I would ever allow my decisions in government to be influenced by my Christian faith. The simple and safe reply is no, never, of course not.”

The words of presidential hopeful Jeb Bush while giving the commencement address Saturday, May 9, 2015 at Liberty University, you know, the center of higher (that means Christian) learning started by Jerry Falwell. (Everyone remembers how tolerant, open-minded, and non-prejudicial Rev. Falwell was.) I am sure every student there breathed a sigh of relief that for once a candidate of Jeb’s stature wouldn’t be using the office of the presidency to expand his religious convictions, like, say, his brother George W. did. But when you read further, it’s obvious that’s exactly what Jeb would do.

                     The Senator made this statement in 1964. It has come to pass.

           

               The Bush article appeared in May 10^th newspapers across the nation and was entitled “Religious Freedom Defended at Liberty”. The problem is the title is incorrect, unless the word “freedom” has been flipped to mean the right to practice bigotry and intolerance.

              Expounding on what he views as an absolute religious right, he said “…as usual, the present [Obama] administration is supporting the use of coercive federal power. What should be easy calls, in favor of religious freedom, have instead become an aggressive stance against it. Somebody here is being small-minded and intolerant, and it sure isn’t the nuns, ministers, and laymen and women who ask only to live and practice their faith. Federal authorities are demanding obedience, in complete disregard of religious conscience – and in a free society, the answer [to obedience] is, ‘No.’”

                                Jeb looking confused, a typical Bush trait.

              Let me distill his gobbledygook so it’s clear what he meant. Business owners of faith want to discriminate against consumers based on a narrow-minded religious belief; and those who oppose that discrimination are being the “small-minded and intolerant” ones. The nuns, ministers, laymen and women living and practicing their faith should be allowed to use the power of law to continue their bigotry…because that’s what their holy book demands of them. We cannot allow that discrimination to be curtailed because without it, they cease to be true christians.”

             As usual, the clergy are allowed to select which parts of their holy books they’ll wield against the people they don’t like. Leviticus 11:9-12 states shellfish are an abomination but no church I know of demands government action against Red Lobster. And even though Leviticus 11:6-8 says don’t touch the skin of a dead pig, I have yet to hear, read, or see any person of faith ordering an end to American football games. But Jeb Bush wants to safeguard the religious bigotry of those who can’t abide gay marriage or the use of birth control. And he's considered the moderate GOP candidate.

             What is it about projection that is so appealing to politicians? Jeb wants to use the power of government so that people practicing their faith can continue to discriminate; not to use that power to grant all people the same rights. When it comes to religious bigotry, they deny there is any discrimination and instead claim it is those who are being discriminated against that are being small-minded and intolerant. Jeb drools over the ready-to-use accessibility of projecting religious discrimination. It’s the political version of "I know you are but what am I?".            

           Why should the government allow any loopholes for religious intolerance? Bigotry is bigotry whether it’s dressed up in the language of faith or not.

Bigots request the Supreme Court grant them continued discriminatory rights against gays

The fundamentalists just won’t give it up.

In a landmark 2003 decision, the US Supreme Court declared gay sex was not a crime. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the Court’s opinion that “moral disapproval is not a valid justification for discriminatory laws that demean gay couples."

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent, predicted that eliminating moral disapproval as a rightful basis for a law would allow same-sex marriage. He only had to wait a few months when in May 2004; Massachusetts became the first state to declare gay couples had a right to marry. That set in motion state-by-state challenges to laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Many members of state legislatures still believed gay sex was a crime, therefore, gays shouldn't be allowed to marry and legitimize it, but they couldn't come right out and say that.

This created a legal black hole as lawyers defending anti-gay marriage laws scrambled to find a rational basis to continue discrimination that did not rely on “tradition”, or on the religious view that homosexuality was a sin. Initial efforts led them to suggest it was a procreation issue: Opposite-sex couples should marry because they could have children, even accidentally, and the state wanted them to wed. Ergo, it could legally limit marriage to heterosexual couples only...for the sake of the children, of course.

By 2015, Michigan had twisted Justice Kennedy's 2003 opinion about discriminatory laws by saying that they don't want to let gay people marry because getting married would demean gay people. Demeaning heterosexual couples via marriage, though, was not a problem.

 In Kentucky, they felt that their marriage ban wasn't discriminatory, since LGBTs are free to get married, as long as it’s straight-married. No, not a whiff of discrimination in that. What if we reversed it? Straights could wed anyone so long as it was only someone of the same sex.

Ohio wants to maintain its marriage ban out of concern for the people who voted for it...sort of like “Sorry folks, our ignorant voters were told by their preachers that this has to stay on the books or God’ll do really awful things to them, and they’re just filled with fear.”

Tennessee is fixated on sex….i.e. penises and vaginas. They are meant for each other and no other orifices are to be considered, except as gateways to hell. See, they use the bible to claim anything else is unnatural…as if a talking serpent is.

    A naturally occurring talking serpent charms Adam and Eve who seem equipped with something un-natural given their supposed 'origin'.

In the current case before the Supreme Court, the state of Michigan has denied a marriage license to two women who are raising four foster kids abandoned by their natural mothers. The women, who are both nurses, were allowed to adopt the children, but only as individuals, not as a couple. When asked why these women should be barred from marrying, Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch insisted the decision had nothing to do with disapproval of their lifestyle; that being gay was not the problem."Oh, gosh, no,” he said, “the state doesn't care about sexual orientation. We're not drawing distinctions based on the identity, the orientation or the choices of anyone. It's not meant to exclude." Clarifying the state’s position, Bursch said “The state's concern is that allowing the women to marry would have an effect on the rest of society. It would "de-link the idea that we're binding children with their biological mom and dad."

See the difference?                                                  

If not, let me re-interpret Mr. Bursch’s bloviating: “Oh gosh no, allowing the women to marry would have a detrimental effect on society because it would hamper our narrow-minded religious bigotry and discrimination because our holy book, written about 2 thousand years ago, before anyone had an understanding of human desire and human biology, made a claim that homosexuality was bad, (but never says why it’s bad) and therefore a sin, punishable by death. Moral disapproval is valid justification to maintain prejudiced and intolerant laws aimed solely at gay couples because the state of Michigan doesn’t want the children “de-linked” from the biological father and mother (the only ones who should be granted marriage rights), and have them “linked-up” with non-biological parents who are of the same sex.” Does Mr. Bursch actually think the four kids should be bound to the mothers and fathers that abandoned them, and not instead be linked with the two women who have loved them and raised them since? How would the women getting married "de-link" the kids from their biological parents? How does that work?
When two people of consenting age love each other, even if they are the same sex, why should it matter to anyone other than the two people involved if they get married?

I personally think the state's position should be bending over and touching their toes...while every LGBT boot in the state is screaming up from behind to land a well-aimed kick.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision before its term ends in June. So, if you’re in a committed gay relationship now, plan on a June wedding.

Criminal Christian goes Free

Hey vandals, lawbreakers and other scofflaws, come on down to Florida. Not only can you hone and perfect your craft, the state will actively support it.

Let’s say you discover you don’t like the color of your neighbor’s house, or any house for that matter…splash it with your choice of paint. Or use spray cans to create artistic graffiti to give it a ‘pop’ feel. You’ll get off the hook by claiming religious freedom. Maybe a store has something you want, but you can’t afford it. No problem. Pick it up and walk out with it. As long as you tell law enforcement ahead of time, there will be little difficulty. And the best part again is you can say it is your religious right. Or, let’s say you don’t like someone else’s belief or spiritual presentation. Here in the Sunshine State you have carte blanche to trash it and pay no penalty.

What's the difference between the thug on the left and the thug on the right? The thug on the right only trashed himself.

On December 24, 2014, Susan Hemeryck, wearing a t-shirt with ‘Catholic Warrior’ on it, entered the capitol building in Tallahassee, pre-apologized to the two Florida Capitol Police officers near the door, walked to the Christmas exhibition area and vandalized the display erected by the Satanic Temple (which featured an angel figure falling into hell-fire, per the bible), then attempted to walk out of the building with what was left of the display. 

It seems that, like many bigoted conservative Christians, Ms. Hemeryck couldn't tolerate the biblically-correct scene so she took it upon herself to destroy it. Amazingly, even though she was filmed by capitol surveillance cameras, was caught red-handed by law enforcement officers as she tried to remove it from the building, and freely admitted to the press that she “yanked that little devil off the fishing line” and “should have just done a better job and finished it off for good,” state prosecutors decided not to pursue the case.

Why?

Hemeryck’s attorney said doing so is “basically putting an attack on Christians.” (Note: An attack on something non-Christian is okay though.) State prosecutors agreed and dropped charges because of a lack of evidence. In a statement issued by state prosecutors, they claimed “The defendant is simply carrying the display. No damages are apparent. It is simply disassembled.” There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Hmmm, must have fallen off the table and gotten torn up by itself.

See, you aren't held accountable for criminal activity in Florida. Desecrating some other religious display is a perpetual “Get Out of Jail Free” card. If an atheist had vandalized a Christian display, prosecutors would have sought the maximum punishment, but because Hemeryck is a “Christian” who destroyed a non-Christian display, she gets to walk without facing any consequences at all.

Strange as it seems, Susan Hemeryck’s religion wouldn’t have any reason to exist were it not for Satan, Lucifer, the devil, or whatever you want to call the ’Prince of Darkness’ in their holy book. Her religion NEEDS Satan to justify its existence. But vandalizing the Satanic display is like destroying water fountains wherever found because water was used to drown everyone in Noah’s flood...even though water was necessary to the story.

Remember, the almighty is impotent and can’t do anything in this world, so it is up to you to do the interpreting for it. But whatever you choose to do, do it with the confidence that it is what god wants. Besides, why would it come here to do anything anymore? That's what all the believers are for. All religions claim that at some point in the past, god left a book of instructions behind and that’s what we have to guide us. Yes, for some reason, one group calls the book the Qur’an, others say it is the Bhagavad Gita, another group claims it is the Book of Mormon, others assert that it is the Sutras, while millions of others say it’s the Bible…and on and on and on. But take heart that god certainly works in mysterious ways, and in mysterious guises, allows people to do whatever they like and then claim they did it for god.

The mystery is, why do people still believe it?  

Who is more backward?

I watched a TV show on YouTube Saturday night which had on ‘Aql al-Bahili, who is listed as a Saudi Arabian scholar on several sites, but I have not been able to ascertain that he is. He is a spokesperson for some faction in Saudi Arabia and seems to have the Saudi royal family’s blessing. In the video he makes a very passionate and articulate speech regarding one of the major weaknesses of Islam. Yet it is difficult to believe the royal family would have approved of his views, given their support of one of Islam’s most extreme factions, Wahhabism. ‘Aql al-Bahili was one of three men on the show, but I only heard the other two men shout as he spoke and their words were not translated. So I don’t know if they were agreeing with him or cursing him.

Here is what the TV show claims he said as shown in subtitles at the bottom: “I know and I acknowledge that there is freedom in the Koran. Many Koranic texts state that people are free. But when the political implementation of a certain ideology has failed to accomplish justice for over fourteen hundred years, whereas others [i.e. in the West] have managed to instate justice by means of a [different] political ideology, I believe that even though [Islamic justice] preceded them, this does not detract from the credit due to those who have reformed the path of human society, infusing it with freedom through an ideological platform other than Islam. Today, all the Islamists acknowledge that the freedom enjoyed in the West is a hundred times better than in the Islamic countries.”

He goes on to say that he “knows Islam is all-encompassing, our problem is that sacred texts are being cited by tyrants, by honorable people and by Islamists alike. Today we must adopt general principles by which human society abides: People must obtain their rights, public funds must not be plundered, a doorman may become a minister and a minister may become a doorman, people must have the right to be safe from attack, as well as the right to establish companies and political parties These are the principles of human societies on planet Earth.

Hearing him say that on a TV show that airs in the Middle East made me wonder if he wasn't a provocateur, a charlatan, or a disinformation agent put in front of the cameras to stir up trouble. I couldn't tell if he really meant it.

I sent the link to a family member who follows events in the Middle East, asked them to watch the video and then give me their thoughts via email. I didn't mention any of my doubts. After she watched it, she sent an email which stated, “The speakers point is true….in many key respects.

“Which ones?” I typed back.

“He admits the Muslim culture is years if not centuries behind the west. Nor do they have Western-style freedom.”

“Does that mean they have trouble functioning in a modern world?”

She thought that they contribute nothing to world dialogue, since all their wisdom was tied up in the false teachings of a book that dated back to the 7^th century.

Without pointing to the obvious similarities of Christians basing their lives on a 4^th century book, I typed back “That may be true but their most ardent believers, even thinking as seventh century men, can still fly 21^st century technology into the 20^th century high rise buildings and destroy them. Or strap 21^st century explosives to themselves and blow up dozens of people. Their backwardness is only because their mind is not free; it has been forced into the Muslim shoe box.”

She typed back, “One could also reasonably argue that enslavement to lusts, sins, obsessions, addictions etc. is not real freedom either.”

I typed back “?”

Her response, “The West has fostered the addictions and hedonism that are destroying us. It is the perversion and deliberate trashing of our Judeo-Christian value system which has resulted in such excesses and enslavements.”

“So Islam is right, even if stuck in the 7^th century, and many in the West are wrong and are just as enslaved…but it’s not due to what’s read in some book. It’s due to secular obsessions???”

I don’t think she understood my sarcasm, as she replied “God has a few surprises for them, when they try to build a world on the ashes of Judeo-Christianity. Jesus will see to that.”

I thought “This is how the Crusades started.” The discussion about a backward Middle Eastern religion had suddenly become confirmation about another backward Middle Eastern religion that had to be absolutely true, because my relative simply wanted it to be true. A dozen times I was tempted to put her email address on the screen and hit the delete button. She is still waiting to hear back from me.

American Sniper

I was at a salon recently having my hair trimmed when the stylist, in the midst of discussing how the cut would look, asked if I had seen the movie “American Sniper”. She was a white, middle-class, middle aged woman who didn’t appear to be the type who would like ‘war’ movies. Before I had a chance to answer, she said she had just seen it and thoroughly enjoyed it. The movie made her so proud to be an American, that the main character (Chris Kyle) was a real hero, and that we needed more like him. She added that she thought those who spoke out against the movie were un-American and were people who hated the U.S. in general and the American military in particular. I was waiting for her to call them communists or Muslim sympathizers, but she changed the subject when I responded that I hadn't seen it.

Nor do I intend to.

I had read Chris Kyle’s book and knew, based on what he said in his autobiography, that he was anything but heroic. He thought shooting people was fun and it was why he served four tours of duty in Iraq. The hair stylist talked about how brave Kyle was, how it showed what a family man he was because he missed his wife and children while serving overseas, and how the movie was an honest portrayal of a real American. Hogwash! That may have been in the movie, but that isn't what he wrote in his book.

Maybe he just ‘misremembered’ things, like NBC’s Brian Williams, but there were a lot of things Kyle lied about, not just in his book but also when he was interviewed on TV; his claim that he shot looters in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, his gunning down two men who attempted to car-jack him at a gas station outside Dallas, his made-up story about punching out former Governor Jesse Ventura in a San Diego bar, his phony dedication to his family as he related to why he wanted to go back to Iraq…(it wasn't because he wanted to serve his country. It was because killing savages was fun!) All were investigated, some even went to court, and found to be untrue. Based on what was in his book, I wondered what this woman found heroic about him. I didn't ask her though because it was clear any response that questioned the authenticity of the movie would upset her…and she had scissors in her hands.

But I was curious; would she consider the people who executed death row inmates heroic? They were killing people who seemingly deserved it, just like Kyle claimed he did, and they at least had the bravery to face those they killed. How about the Japanese soldiers who hid in caves or trees and shot American soldiers and marines wading ashore during the invasions of Japanese islands such as Okinawa or Iwo Jima, or Japanese-controlled islands like Peleliu or Tarawa, knowing they would be blasted out of their sniper’s hideout? What about the 19 men aboard the airliners hijacked on 9/11? Were their actions heroic, especially in light of the fact that they knew ahead of time they would die? What constitutes a hero? It certainly isn’t shooting people from a rooftop a half a mile away.

I went online and found several websites that reviewed movies. I chose eight of them that had watched American Sniper and had video reviews longer than five minutes. I also read six reviews of the movie. Those fourteen covered the spectrum; from a one star rating, or didn't like it, to five stars and loved it. Every one of them said the movie only follows the book in the broadest sense of the term; it leaves out key elements that were essential to the story line, and that the movie made Kyle look far more sympathetic and conflicted than he actually wrote in the book.

Warfare has been a lifelong interest of mine, because it is a human-caused disaster. Human beings make a choice to go to war and kill other human beings. Unlike a hurricane, earthquake or volcanic eruption, it’s something that could have been avoided. I study the reasons it was not, the methods used to kill the enemy, the campaigns, and the people who are drawn in and changed by it. Heroic things can happen in wartime, but killing people is not heroic. It is barbaric and, frankly, little more than government-sanctioned murder. One of my main areas of study is aerial combat and the pilots who served, especially in World War One. I am deeply interested in why they chose such an unusual, novel, and in many ways terrifying way to fight. But none of them are my heroes. Nothing they did was heroic. It was their job. The concept of the ace simply meant they were very, very good at their job of killing. Some men did show noble characteristics, such as French ace Georges Guynemer, who refused to shoot down German ace Ernst Udet when he saw his guns were jammed. Or Captain James McCudden of the RFC, who would not ambush an opponent. In hindsight, those traits were probably court-martialable because the point was to prevent the enemy from achieving any future success. But these men decided they would not let war turn them into cold-blooded killers just because it could.

Some of the savages Chris Kyle wanted to kill

Chris Kyle showed no such inclination. He reveled in killing, calling any Iraqi a ‘savage’, whether they were ones he was about to shoot or not. He relished the competition with other snipers and found it motivated him to kill even more. Not because the enemy was a threat, but because someone was getting close to his number of kills. It’s eerily similar to the two Japanese officers whose competition during the Rape of Nanking China in 1937-38 was covered by Japanese newspapers like it was a sports match. The two officers had a ‘friendly’ rivalry to be the first to behead 100 captured Chinese.

Is this the kind of soldier we are turning out anymore? This is the legacy that the hair stylist found so fantastically American and worthy of her adulation. But the ‘American Sniper’ is how we are now viewed around the world. Some may think that it’s good, for others to fear us because we might show up in their country and shoot their citizens from distant rooftops. I think what it is doing is making the old notion of the ‘ugly’ American even uglier, more dangerous, and an evil influence in the world. That’s not a nation or a legacy to be proud of.

Welcome to Mississippi: The Jesus State

Desperate times call for desperate measures, at least if you’re a bible-thumping Mississippi politician. When it appears no one is taking your religion seriously, rub it in everyone’s face by introducing legislation to make your holy book a permanent part of the state’s heritage.

A bill has been placed before Mississippi’s legislature to make the bible the state’s official book. Precisely which version has still not been determined. Will it be the Catholic, King James, Coptic, New Standard, Greek Orthodox, New International, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, or some other translation? This is an important point since you don’t want the people of the state reading the wrong account. As any True Christian ® will tell you, only their version is the right version, all others will lead you to hell, so this issue will need to be addressed.

Tom Miles and Mike Evans

One of the bill’s sponsors, Democratic State Representative Tom Miles, claims that the Bible “provides a good role model on how to treat people. They could read in there about love and compassion” which proves Representative Miles hasn’t read it yet, or is encouraging people to just cherry-pick from it. Does he mean the good role models provided by: God as he deals with Adam and Eve, Lot and his two daughters, Jehoram of Judah, King David, Abraham, Saul, or just about anybody in Deuteronomy? And that love and compassion business; is it the love shown for Jephthah’s daughter, Job’s family, the Amalekites, the Midianites, the Canaanites, the first-born of the Egyptians, all the children aged two and under in Palestine when Jesus is born, or everything down to the fish and insects in God’s worldwide flood? Nowhere does the bible say why every living thing was sentenced to death. What did the chinchillas do to piss God off? Neither love nor compassion seem high on God’s list.

But a bigger issue is, why pick the bible? Why immortalize a book that divides people and treats woman as property, a book that is laced with genocide, blood sacrifice, slavery, misogyny, fables, inaccuracies, and submission to a celestial tyrant?  And that’s just in the first two chapters. Why not choose William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury, Willie Morris’ My Mississippi, or Shelby Foote’s Follow Me Down? These writers were all born in the Magnolia State and their books drew heavily on their experiences of growing up there. Larry Wells, whose wife is a descendant of Faulkner, said of the bill, “It’s impossible to conceive of a state abandoning its literary heritage like that...what would Faulkner, Welty, Shelby Foote and Richard Wright think? I think they would collectively link arms and say, ‘Go back to kindergarten, Legislature.’” What an insidious thing to say…about kindergartners. They usually display greater common sense than these members of the state legislature. The bible was written by semi-literate men in a small area of the Middle East and was intended strictly for the Hebrew people. Very few of their descendants live in Mississippi, so it doesn’t make sense to propose the bible, unless you have a sneaky agenda to coerce people into following your religion.

In an effort to evade the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, the bill’s other sponsor, Democratic Representative Michael Evans says, "the bill doesn't force anyone to read it.” No one is forced to use U.S. currency which includes “In God We Trust” on it, but what alternative is there? Evans is more up front when he admits “the bill will encourage people to pick up the Bible.” Encourage. How long before encourage becomes compulsory? There’s the real reason people like him want it declared the ‘state book’. He wants everyone to remember him as Mississippi’s Numero-Uno-Christian and the guy who made recognition of his religion obligatory. Because what’s good for Mike Evans has to be good for the rest of the state, otherwise, why else would God have given him the idea to push this bill when it is clearly unconstitutional? The separation of church and state? Not in his state. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? Mr. Evans or Miles would retort “Well, it ain’t a law now…see here…people’s jus’ ‘posed ta see the bible is highly regarded by people lahk me at the govumint level, an’ take it more serious-like, read it, an’ put it ta use in they’s lives.” I don’t live in that state, but I do have a bible, and I've found an excellent use for it.

There may be a bible in most Mississippi homes but few of the residents there have actually sat down and read all the way through it, even Mr. Miles and Mr. Evans. I would bet the people in Mississippi have read more of the Harry Potter series of books. They are much better reads, too.

Mississippi has been ranked as the most religious state in the country but it also ranks dead last of all 50 states and the District of Columbia…in areas such as health, educational attainment, seat belt use, and median household income. Is it any surprise? This idiotic bill isn't going to help Myth-iss-ippi-ans improve their reading rank either. They are listed last in that category too.

Cold-Cocking for Jesus

Nothing speaks to the veracity of religion better than a good, solid punch. Cold-cocking someone into having faith or as a way of getting them to question their non-belief is just what God wants. Otherwise, why would He have said in Exodus 21:19 that “the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff…”. People are convinced of a supernatural being’s existence if someone bloodies their nose or sucker-punches them as proof.

Eric Dammann, a pastor at Bible Baptist Church in Hasbrouck Heights New Jersey, discovered a surprisingly successful knuckle-ministering technique. Last month his church posted a video of him bragging before his congregation about leading a young man to Christ by punching him in the chest “as hard as he could”. The video shows him demonstrating just what kind of blow he dished out on the unsuspecting youth, a short clip of which you can see at this YouTube address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu7o6l1YAt8

Seems while Eric was visiting a youth group in Calgary Canada years earlier he met Ben who he describes as a nice, bright kid, but a smart aleck, which in Eric’s mind made him dangerous. Throughout Eric’s proselytizing and preaching, the young man didn't seem to be taking “the Lord serious” [sic]. (What he meant was Ben wasn't taking him seriously.)This apparently enraged Eric because he said he then “walked over to him and went BAM, punched him in the chest as hard as I could. I crumpled the kid, I just crumpled him.” He then claims he leaned over the young man and said “Ben, when are you going to stop playing games with God?” (He meant stop playing games with him.) and this kid willingly converted right then and there.

I’m sure he did. I’ll bet Eric doesn’t think the kid did it out of, say, duress or to keep from being slugged again. Instead of God convincing the wayward youth, Eric decided it was up to him to show Ben that he may be a man of peace with the love of Jesus inside…it didn't extend to his fist. That’s where his God abided. And that God spoke to smart-alecky kids by being balled up and slammed into their chests. God loves a cheerful giver.

  I wonder what the kid's parents thought when they heard some American preacher came to their town and, in order to convert their son, he beat him to the ground. Hopefully, Pastor Dammann has a good lawyer in his congregation because he is going to need him now that he's admitted to child abuse.

I was surprised when researching this story that there have been numerous recent incidents of ministers who applied Eric's method in their own churches. They just didn't post anything on a webpage or on Facebook afterward. Many lawsuits have been filed as a result and there were several photographs of kids with split lips, swollen faces or black and blue marks on their chests, but none of the preacher-suspects used the opportunity to say they did it for God. Most admitted they just lost their temper.

  For me, this story was not a new one. In the 1950s and '60s my grandfather, a Disciples of Christ minister, preached about his youthful memories of a tall, brawny and very combative preacher who used to go into taverns, barrooms and hotels in West Virginia in the late 1800s and challenge men to a fight. He would then beat them senseless after eliciting a promise from them that, if he won, they had to attend services while he was at the local church or his tent revival was in town. Grandfather never seemed to grasp the irony of talking about Jesus who supposedly said ‘Turn the other cheek’, and then in the same sermon he all but gushed about this preacher slugging and pounding people until they were streaming blood, covered with bruises (and in some cases needing immediate medical attention), in order to get them to accept the preacher's religion. Jesus was always portrayed by my grandfather as the complete antithesis of this supposed man-of-God who was nothing more than a bully with a bible. Terrorists use fear as a way of achieving their aims, and fear was this preacher’s technique, but instead of using the fear of hell, he used the fear of his fist and another thrashing. I often wondered if grandfather secretly wished he could have put the fear of God into people the same way. It confirmed to me that fear is man-made...and religion is fear.