We Need a Federal "No More Inbreeding" Ammendment
Say what you will about the FMA's chances of ever getting passed, you do have to admit that President Bush's endorsement of it have caused the wingnuts to really show their nuttier side.
A couple of quick examples:
1. Here's Jerry Falwell with A Call to Scotchguard Marriage :
Yes, their traditions like wooden teeth, outhouses, and slavery would be secured forever and ever.
There is indeed literally no telling what they will want next, because those close-mouthed godless radical gay social extremists just aren't saying. But we can guess: they'll probably want homosexual wedding showers and gay divorce. Oh, and to eat Christian babies.
See, I told you they wanted to eat our children! And you'll notice that some of them are so depraved that they have more than one lifestyle. Be careful: some of these bi-lifestylers might be in YOUR neighborhood. Be especially wary of the evangalist/hateful bigot. They can be nasty when cornered.
2. And now let's let Armstrong Williams order around the VP's daughter in Dance, Mary, Dance:
Damn gays! They want us to treat them like humans, and then they go and set up a website asking "the openly gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney" to support their cause. And this means that we DON'T have to treat them like humans.
Oh, and Armstrong wants you to know that his sexual acts are bold and flavorful.
Yeah, they're supposed to respect people and stuff, and yet they treat Mary like a homosexual! The hypocrites! Thank heavens that we never claimed to respect anybody, and so can bash people without compunction.
Whoa, Armstrong has figured out those inscrutable gays! It seems that they aren't trying to force Catholic priests marry them after all! No, they want the economic and legal benefits that come with civil marriage. The sneaks!
Why do gays hate America and its most sacred religious and cultural ideals?
World O' Good Stuff
Here are some things to amuse and/or enlighten you:
1. Fried Green al-Qaedas awards their prestigious "Hoover Award" to Donald Wildmon, president of the American Family Association. He received the honor for finding dirt EVERYWHERE. And for sucking.
2. In honor or Education Secretary Rod Paige, Washing the Blog presents Terrorism Elementary!!! It has a curriculum, illustrations, and everything.
3. And Sadly, No! reads Adam Yoshida so you don't have it. Per Sadly, Adam has a unique slant on Christianity (and love), in that he claims that one can love one's enemies but still want to kill them. Oh, and somehow foot fetisists are committing dangerous acts, just like how homosexuals are sunshine patriots. Anyway, Sadly makes as much sense of it as anyone could.
If You Criticize Mel, You're Criticizing Jesus
What can I say about Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ that hasn't already been said?
But I have read at least 6231 "reviews" done by conservative pundits, and can distill them for you: the movie isn't (overtly) anti-Semitic; it is, however, very violent, being centered on Christ's physical suffering -- and watching 100 minutes of Christ being scourged, beaten, battered, etc., makes an emotional impact on the viewer. Oh, and every conservative in North America is required to see the film in order to prove that he or she is on the side of religion over secularism, goodness over immorality, and conservatism over those liberal smarty-pants who think they're better than us.
So, I just want to remind people that IT'S JUST A MOVIE.
For a very interesting and well-researched piece about how the film is being used as a touchstone in a culture war, see David Neiwert.
And for an example of how the movie is being presented as more than a movie, see It's open season on Christianity, the latest column by 15-year-old Kyle Williams.
I think I'm at least as widely read as Kyle, and I haven't seen any mainstream (or even second-string) reviewers or opiners taking swings at Jesus. While Kyle does provide selected portions of a few reviews in order to outrage his readers with the calumny the "bigots" are directing at the film, none of his examples are about Jesus bashing, but are just criticisms of aspects of the film or of Gibson's marketing of the film.
Um, no. It all started with Mel claiming that he was defending himself against "any Jewish people" who might attack the film. Nobody had. Nobody cared about his film back then. And later, when Jewish groups finally did object to the film, they were OBJECTING TO THE FILM, not attacking Christianity.
No, he didn't "fanatically bash" Mel Gibson (just regularly bashed him). And Rich didn't bash Christianity, he just made a few snarky comments about Mel's religion, a break-off from Catholicism which believes that Kyle is not going to heaven. Oh, and Rich said nothing about any member of Mel's family except Mel's father, the Holocaust denier. And I don't recall Rich expressing opposition to many things which Gibson has been part of, such as Chicken Run. And Kyle doesn't point out that Mel struck back at Rich, saying he wanted Rich dead, his dog dead, and his intestines on a stick, which sounds a lot more fanatical than anything Rich ever said.
Anyway, no bashing of Christianity in Rich's column. I wonder if Kyle actually read it, or just read about it from other outraged anti-secular "Christians."
Kyle's other examples of "bigots" attacking Christianity are all just movie reviews: Per Kyle, Salon gave the movie a "terrible review," and said the 3 major religions "should worried about its impact." The Newsweekreviewer "compared the film with pornography and rape" (in that the long, sustained depiction of the torture of Christ gave him the same feeling as watching the real-time depiction of rape in the film Irreversible). Christopher Hitchens "says the film was marketed toward the 'gay Christian sado-masochistic community,'" (because the focus on whipping seemed to reflect an S&M esthetic). Kyle concludes his run-down of movie criticism thusly: "It's interesting how general condemnations of Christianity can be excused under the banner of 'entertainment review.'"
But, I still can't see where anybody actually condemned Christianity. But to Kyle, a criticism of the film IS a criticism of Christ. Kyle is young, and so can be forgiven making that mistake of the emotionally immature: believing that a criticism of something he likes is a criticism of Kyle himself. It's not. This is JUST A FILM. And Mel is NOT THE CHRIST, and so it's not blasphemy to object to his marketing plan or his movie. Sure, Mel seems to be telling you otherwise, but that IS blasphemy. I wish Kyle's elders would realize this too.
In a letter to WorldNetDaily one "M.W." says that he or she will not be seeing the film because it's "a graven image," in that it's a "likeness" of Jesus, and we aren't supposed to be making images of Him.
Okay, I don't believe that the second commandment actually forbids us from making or watching movies that depict Christ, but I do think that if we start worshipping the movie instead of Christ, that we are indeed breaking this commandment. And confounding the movie with Christ himself is also a way of breaking this commandment, I believe. And like "M.W" sort of pointed out, there is way more to Christ than that he got beat up really bad, and so claiming that this IS Christianity is also a form of idolatry, since it takes us away from Christ Himself.
So, enjoy movies responsibly, or I'm not going to let you kids watch them anymore.