Godless Athiests Persecute Rick Perry with Mockery of Jesus!

Jesus Responds to Rick Perry

Blasphemy! ... or IS it?

As our comic impersonator put it...

"What have gays in the military ever done to Rick Perry other than keeping him safe while he executed the mentally retarded?"

When you read the Words in Red, Jesus had a few blunt things to say about the Pharisees of his day, the ones that made a big, fat hairy deal about public piety. He had a few choice parables about people who talked the talk but didn't actually walk the walk. And whatever you might think of an actor portraying Jesus...

...the gist of the Gospels is that you ARE supposed to be impersonating Jesus. Or to put it in the terms of modern sunday-school Christianity; "What WOULD Jesus Do?"

So the question is not whether it's bad to impersonate Jesus. It's not. The question is, if you attempt to impersonate Jesus, would anyone know that's what you are doing?

If you HAVE to take out an ad to say that you are "not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian..." while attacking the President for supposedly "persecuting" your faith... well, after this, I'd be ashamed as all hell to be mistaken for anyone even remotely LIKE you.

But I have a word for "Christians" like Rick Perry.

Chromefishtian.

Bill O'Reilly gets it EXACTLY right!

"No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder," he said. "The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith...we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way."

It's odd to find that I agree with Bill-O. I do. I've said a great deal about this over the years. I was actually a little shocked to see how VERY much I'd said about it.

But I don't think Bill-O would really like to pursue that thought. Because it amounts to this: Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you a Christian.


Anders Behring Breivik is a Christian in exactly the same sense that Michelle Bachmann is. Or Ted Haggard. Or George Bush. Or Tom Ball. 

Jesus made this point a few times. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord,.. " but I think that obvious and commonplace. Frankly, people like Bill and Anders and George Bush really don't seem to act as if there are consequences in the afterlife for their acts - but what they do care about is you giving them the slack, the benefit of the doubt a "coreligionist" deserves.


So to avoid confusion about the point myself, and being quite unwilling to concede the foundation of my own moral high ground to those unworthy of it, I've coined the term "Chromefishtians." 

Chromefishtians are people, people like the sort Bill is complaining of. The are the ones that have to slap a chrome fish or a bible verse on everything they do so that people will know they are godly people. Because, well, if they didn't do that, their actions would lead people to different and perhaps more obvious conclusions.

Let me quote an example of what I mean from one of my many fine rants on the topic.

 (Welcome to Free Republic! America's exclusive site for God, Family, Country, Life & Liberty constitutional conservative activists! ) in a thread titled Wisconsin Teachers Lead Students in Anti-Walker Chants (thugs instruct children in the capitol)

To: Libloather

> Are they indoctrinating their pupils? You bet your @$$ that's exactly what they've been doing since the 1960s. 
> Where are the decent people of Wisconsin? 
Working to support these slugs. 
Or cleaning and oiling their rifles.

8 posted on March-19-11 10:11:34 AM by Flatus I. Maximus (Everything you know about McCarthyism is wrong.)

---

To: bigbob

It’s that bad. Isn’t it?

9 posted on March-19-11 10:28:03 AM by GVnana

---

To: Libloather

It’s the way WI “repents” for having twice elected Joe McCarthy to the Senate.

10 posted on March-19-11 11:02:14 AM by Theodore R. (John Boehner just surrendered the only weapon with which he had to fight. What does OH see in him?)

---

To: sanjuanbob

"Where are the decent people of Wisconsin? Why no rallys?"Working and earning a living. It's long past time to go Galt.

Boy, it's a good thing they tell us they are Christians, right up there in the title. I don't know how we'd ever know, otherwise. 

Chromefishtians: It's nice when you can see them coming.

I disapprove of chromefishtians.
I call them that to set them apart from people that have read, understood
and follow the things Christ actually said.

H/t William K. Wolfram

To paraphrase Louis CK – it’s true, people are just different in Oklahoma.

Yep, I do adore it when people who stand foresquare against doing one single damn thing Jesus ever said to do, in regard to the poor, the suffering, the orphan, the widow and the stranger at your gate promanently label themselves so you can quietly choose to do business with someone reputable.

Rape, Incest "All Part of God's Plan," Angle Says

Sharon Angle, the Cristo-Republican Senate candadate in Nevada, said this. Out loud.



Um... Sharon, dear. You just said out loud that child rape and incest are all parts of your god's plan.


Via the Huffington Post:

In an segment that has gone unnoticed since it first aired, the Tea Party-backed candidate told the Bill Manders show -- a favorable platform for Republican candidates -- that she opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest. A pregnancy under those circumstances, she said, was "God's plan."

Manders: I, too, am pro life but I'm also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that.

Angle: I'm pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.
 

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I'm a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.


I'm not sure what god that would be, but in Christian tradition, degredation, the torment and exploition of the innocent, the screams and terrors of children, and being impregnated by some personification of loathomeness is the domain of the Red Guy with Horns.

You call yourself a "christian," but untold millions of Christians would disagree.

But let's set "God's Plan" aside for a moment, because clearly that god's morals aren't helping you do anything remotely ethical.

My plan is to help make YOUR words go viral, and tie you like the stinking albatross you are around the necks of the vicious, small minded evil people you so capably and honestly represent.

A Churchillian Fortitude

 

Sir Winston Churchill by webcarve
View more Sir winston churchill Photo Sculptures

 

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Sir Winston Churchill, Speech in November 1942

William Rivers Pitt is having trouble finding a sense of measurable accomplishment after ten years of hard work in the front lines. I empathize and concur, to a degree. He starts out thus:

t r u t h o u t | Go:

"I've been writing about unbelievably bad news for more than a decade now, so when the New Year came around this time, I made up my mind to try and come up with something to write about that was optimistic, positive, more upbeat, or something."

But in the end he finally comes to this conclusion:

The Left has done some truly amazing things in the last ten years, things that took great effort, concentration, passion and will. The need for those qualities did not evaporate with the election of the "good guys." Indeed, those qualities are needed more than ever before.

In passing, he noted:

The Left has a reputation, partially deserved, for being a motley collection of scatterbrained, cause-of-the-week, ego junkies who never really get anything done. But I saw what the Left was able to do when confronted with the criminal ambitions of the Bush administration, and it didn't stop after the war got going. Groups sprung up in every corner of the country and kept the heat on until they made a difference. Whatever one may think about the Democratic Party today, there is no doubt the fortunes of that party were turned in 2006 and 2008 because of the tireless efforts of millions of people to push popular opinion and understanding away from the yawning precipice of national neoconservatism.

 Mr. Pitt, no movement of any sort has ever succeeded by internalizing the labels their enemies give them. I would say, further, that the spontanious, individually directed, cause-oriented and - yes - ego-driven activists, all loosely networked in spontainous communities, each understanding that such alliances are defined by the task at hand, and NOT definitive of some overarching "cause" they must ascribe to in order to be "permitted" the "privilidge" of joining a march, stuffing envelopes or writing a blog is precisely what has carried this day.

Sir, if you are a pessimist, I'm the greater one. And the fight has been longer and bloodier and more discouraging than you care to define. Personally, I mark the beginning of it with the election of Ronald Regan. And from that point, all that has happened has been pretty much what I expected, save not quite so immediately catastrophically as I had expected.

And this has been due to some very damn skillful guerrilla action, which would have certainly have been defeated had the counter-moves been expected.

Let us speak for a moment of the entire concept of asymmetrical warfare. The goal is not to "win" - it is to delay, to disrupt, to disaffect - to give the enemy time and space and conditions under which they will generate their own failure. It really is about "hearts and minds," folks. And the greatest part of the battle is getting the enemy to show their true selves, their genuine feelings and ultimate motivations.

It's been alleged that Ronald Regan was secretly a member of the John Birch Society. It's one of those easy allegations that is probably not in the least true - but it's also quite beside the point, because he certainly acted in ways and in collaboration with people who shared the core understandings and furthered the goals of the John Birch Society.

And we must also observe that there has been a concerted effort - from the eighties on - to place "stealth zealots" into public office, where they will vote and act in accordance to Dominionst Evangelical principles, without the slightest regard to the the goals they claim to be working toward. And we all know what this led to; the sort of preference for idiological purity over professional competence that gave us the Iraq war as it was and the aftermath of Katrina as it still is.

So, we have been fighting a guerrilla war against covert warriors - a covert mirror of the overt proxy wars fought in places such as Nicaragua and Columbia - where the real goal was not the liberation or freedom of the people, but who would control them in the name of what ideology. And gradually, one of the emergent prizes of the battle, a great and largely unrecognized victory, is that the "right" to control other people is not just something to be contensted, but is an idea that absolutely must be contested in it's own right. For when it's a fight between the left hand and the right hand, everyone in the middle gets screwed.

It's not just because the Right is wrong about having such a right - it's utterly wrong in asserting that it's even possible, and that the difference in outcome between what it's stated and sincerely held principles suggest and the outcomes that happen every time they are applied to a protesting population attests without exception - people do as they will, and at the very best, can be persuaded at great expense and pain to visibly conform in public, while quite likely doing something else in private that ultamately leads to far greater ills than those supposedly "cured" by whatever simplistic moralistic wild hair was induldged upon us.

I might easily cite Prohibition, a folly of the Left. Or arguably, the folly of The Great Society and the lunar landscapes and Stalinist Modern Projects left in it's wake. Oh, but their intentions were so noble!

Then there's the whole issue of Reproductive Choice, or the unanticipated fallout of "Abstinence Only" education, which has not affected teen pregnancy but has substantially contributed to the rise in sexually transmitted disease. 

But these bad outcomes are dismissed as being unimportant, the results of sins, an acceptable cost of upholding some nebulous and indefinable "principle."Apparently the Left in North America has learned it's lesson, that you can't force people to behave in ways they won't, even if it is for their own good - which it probably isn't.

The strength - or at least the great blessing - of the modern "Left" is that there IS no single defining ideology, and therefore the only thing that may unite "the left" is an agreement about particular circumstances, particular facts and particular problems that demand at the very least the cessation of old policies and perhaps some new, more pragmatic ones. The issue of Marajuana and the outcome of the whole Drug War is one conspicuous example illustrating some very strange bedfellows, from old and very Liberal hippies to Randian Libertarians to law enforcement professionals.

One thing is for sure, when you see old Communists putting aside their sectarian issues and marching together with Anarchists (their natural enemies) in concert with Liberal Christians, Union Activists, militant athiests, feminists, pro-choicers and environmental activists - people with extraordinarily divergent views and priorities - you can be reasonably certain that what they each see as being a problem from their various perspectives is INDEED a problem, and anyone who lumps them all together as "libtards" is not just ignorant of the issue, but is in fact likely some personification of the issue - or profiting from it.

Needless to say, the only way any large group of opposition to issues of the day can coelece and persist in the face of reality is by focusing on one particular commonality, while accepting as a given that some will be on the other side of the line on other issues, and that diversity is to be celebrated, rather than demonized.

And it's empowered by the Internet, which I think can be stated as being, arguably, on the front line of disorganized dissent and unlikely alliances since it's very inception and spread through Government and those bastions of Godless Liberalism - Universities.

A person who understands this has no difficulty with the ACLU or the Annenburg Foundation's Factcheck.org - but on the neoconservative/Dominionist Right - all must agree about everything, or they are apostates, while none within the tent may be criticised at all (save when they are cast into the Outer Darkeness.)

Now, one thing Mr. Pitt may or may not have noticed, but the opposition to a centrist consensus about certain "litmus test" issues held dear by the Right has become increasingly unhinged, it's arguments increasingly paranoid, it's reliance on conspiracy theory and outright lies becoming it's primary mode, it's online and print proponents becoming less and less capable of coherent argument. This is also a victory. You see, it is, as I said above, a war for the hearts and minds of people - in the United States, of course, but indeed within the Americas and the world as a whole.

And in the United States, we are now beginning to see the contents of the hearts and the quality of the minds shrieking that we must all comply with their paranoid and infintile dribblings.

Please Don't Call Me "Liberal" T-Shirt by webcarve
More Political T-Shirts

There's yet much to be done - but one by one by one, we must take back the organizations and structures that they have polluted, the school boards, the charities, the political organizations, the precincts - and I don't just mean "along partisan lines." They need to be taken away from the crazy people, by sane people of all political and religious persuasions.

From what I see out there, from the near absence of intelligable voices from the Right - when it used to be the core of political intellect, councelling against emotionalism and populism as the greatest enemies of democratic representative republics - there are a whole lot of utterly disgusted Conservatives trying to pretend it will all go away.

Well, it won't. Not without your help, ladies and gentlemen. And if you fear being called a Liberal or a "RINO" for your stances - remember, you are being called that by people capable of calling Obama a Communist and a Nazi in the same paragraph. What they really mean is "poopy-head," and all it shows is that they are simply not capable of behaving as functional, responsible adults in public places.

Sir Winston Churchill by webcarve

@World You can't make this shit up #ConservativeBible #WTF

The title is a HT to ... well, it seems like everyone on twitter. But it was @shoq who clarified that the fun was all about this. The Conservative Bible Project.

Conservative Bible Project

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning:

• lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts of Christianity
• lack of precision in modern language
• translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.^[1]
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:^[2]

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level^[3]
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;^[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";^[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here.

Now, ordinarily I'd have to link to Pandagon or Demcratic Underground to find eloquent snark, but today, I find I can refer to ... wait for it... Little Green Footballs.

They start out with a workmanlike left jab...

The far right fanatics who run “Conservapedia” have a new project: they’re planning to rewrite the Bible to get rid of all of that liberalism and socialism: Conservative Bible Project.

There's a follow through with several solid body blows which you might better enjoy in the surprisingly unlikely context - but I must share the final haymaker.

The interesting thing about this project: it’s a tacit admission that the Bible itself is not the unchangeable, literal word of God, but can be edited as necessary to fit political purposes.

 Ok, dudes, when Little Green EFfing Footballs calls you "far right fanatics..." - it's time for a centering excercise. Seriously.

When people who are ordinarly proud of being called "wingnuts" actually pointing, mocking and LOLing just like Godless Liberals, it's time to reconnect to the Reality Base.

You should also look up Poe's Law.

In all fairness, I should point out that Conservapedia does recognize Poe's Law - and has reinterpreted it according to solid Conservative principles.

Like I said, you just can't make this shit up.

Why don't you log into Twitter and give them a hand.

Your community values, and what they say about you.

There is a perfectly apt Conservative precept aimed at one of the most common sins of liberalism that sums up my reaction to this article:

"Don't be so open-minded that you let your brains fall out."

Here is another: "In order for evil to flourish, all that is required is that good men do nothing."

Of course, in these times, that position requires a little encouragement.

Surprises from Liberty University: What I Learned as an Undercover Evangelical

A sociologist named Margarita Mooney has shown that college students who attend regular religious services report being happier, more diligent, and more satisfied with their college experience than students who practice no religion. I still don't consider myself an evangelical Christian, but I can understand now what millions of Christian college students see in faith-based education, and why Liberty's enrollment has grown at a rate that few colleges, secular or religious, have ever matched.

Since the book came out, I've taken some heat from people who have argued that, by going to Liberty with an open mind, I was turning a blind eye to intolerance - or worse, that I'd been brainwashed by my time under Rev. Falwell's tutelage. But no community is all bad, and to dismiss Liberty as a place of wall-to-wall insanity is to reduce it, and the evangelical movement that birthed it, to a lazy caricature.

I still disagree with a lot of the values Liberty stands for, but seeing the human faces on the other side of the American culture wars made me question my own assumptions and realize that, in some ways, I had just as much to learn about tolerance as the most hard-line fundamentalist.

It is all very high-minded and tolerant - until we realize that we are being asked to be tolerant of a community that is designed to further and advance un-apologetically intolerant causes and ideals - with coursework that is rather less well-founded in science, reality, or even respectable Christian theology than your average hairspray porn. No amount of hair-spray can overcome basic bore-stroke incompatibility, so there is a degree beyond which credulity cannot be stretched. So to speak.

The intellectual foundation of Liberty University, on the other hand, is somewhat akin to using Hentai Anime to illustrate a sex-ed manual, with the straight-faced assertion that every once in a while, if you are very good or bad, tentacles will suddenly appear from toilets and heating vents for no particularly understandable reasons.

From the article:

I remember opening my first Creationist Biology exam to find the question: "True or False: Noah's Ark was large enough to accommodate various species of dinosaurs." (According to my professor, the answer was "True" - since dinosaurs and humans cohabited the earth after the Flood, they would have had to find a way to squeeze onto the Ark. He suggested that they could have been teenage dinosaurs, so as to take up less space.) Also troubling was Liberty's extreme social and political conservatism, which made for classroom lessons like "The Consequences of Immoral Sex" and textbook chapters like "Myths Behind the Homosexual Agenda."

Like I said - it's on a par with tentacle porn as part of a Sex-ed curriculum.

But the author asserts that there were were warm fuzzies to be had, and therefore the community itself was not without merit.

There are many virtues in communities. There were virtues and good times to be found in various slave cultures. There was much to be praised about the nobility and courage of Gladiators - and yet one must not overlook the context, in which the entire purpose of their lives and deaths was to die an agonizing public death - no doubt virtuously and courageously - for entertainment.

One must ask, "In what what good end does this virtue lead us?"

All cultures do indeed depend upon virtues and generally select several of particular importance and likewise define any number of vices. But one must look to see if these virtues and vices map coherently to any generally agreed-upon map of ethical behavior. And, whatever map one selects, one must see if there's any particular correspondence between the moral principles cited most often, public actions and actual outcomes.

I find it ironic, for instance, that the public behavior and associations of Jesus of Nazareth would very likely make him unsuited for tenure at Liberty University.

I would argue that while it may well be comfortable and attractive for persons who identify with "Conservative Family Values" to live and learn in a context where their preconceptions are reinforced, rather than challenged, it is not "learning" or "education" in any usual sense - it is rather "indoctrination" and "brainwashing," if only in the sense of maintaining the condition, rather than pro-actively challenging parochial assumptions.

And if one argues a community of the like-minded does not mean all must be irredeemable fools - nonetheless, it is still a collective that is far less than the sum of it's parts, for exactly the same reasons and by exactly the same means as perfected by, say, Liberty's political ally, The Unification Church.

No, participation in such a system of "education" is to abandon one's own moral and ethical judgment to - well, fools at best. And ultimately, I challenge anyone to establish a case where such things ever lead to enough good to balance the harm they do.

What harm?

Consider how very much graduates from such institutions of "higher learning" had to do with the current world-wide economic disaster, refusal to deal with climate or energy issues in any serious way, general hostility towards science and the systemic and deliberate sabotage of public education, from high to low.

And this criticism may be laid without any reference whatsoever to religion or faith in any ethically coherent, defensible sense.

We are speaking of teachings that are in deliberate opposition to established fact - not faith in the absence of evidence. Moreover, many of these "faith based assumptions," particularly the socio-economic ones - have either no biblical foundation, or are in direct opposition to principles stated in the big red letters.

We are speaking of a conscious, deliberate, fabricated and quite provably delusional worldview; supported with malicious, and dishonest misrepresentation of the morals, ethics and motives of all paths and persons that might serve to inform the conscience and intellects of the inmates of these institutions of higher brainwashing.

I do not see this as a religious or political issue; it's rather a divide between those willing to think about issues and make competent issues based on real information and those who would prefer to live in a comfortable self-affirmation society that simply denies the existence or reality of anything that may call those comforting assumptions into question. In other words, it is the choice between the possibility of good outcomes and the certainty of outcomes that can be accurately and fairly described as "evil."

The confluence of current events conspire with the willful subversion and malicious discontent of such willing tools may force the rational and civilized to draw a sharp and surgical line in the sand between the real and the fabulous. Some - many, I hope - may be presented with the dilemma Gen. Robert E. Lee faced - and choose more wisely. I still cherish some hope in that regard, but even in the light of my greatest hopes, there is no future I can see in which these two Americas can continue as one singular nation. The ability to pretend the differences do not exist, don't really matter and do not play out in terms of practical, disastrous effect cannot long be maintained.

Likewise, it becomes clear that various visions of the future of the US - or parts of it at least - are defined by the absence of those who are invited, by implication, to explore their life-paths elsewhere.

As I stated at the beginning, there are limits to tolerance. My tolerance ends when it seems likely that a majority of the "moral majority" support the use of torture in direct contradiction to every value and example in the bible and every civilized moral code in existence.

Then, such is life and the lives of nations and peoples. This is a paradigm shift that effects everyone on the planet, where we are finding that the teachings of old are inadequate to the social, economic, environmental and ethical challenges we are faced with. Clearly, we need a moral and ethical framework that can help us deal with these deeply interconnected challenges Equally clearly, American Conservative Christianity, and it's mirror twin, the various violently oppressive "Islamic" movements are a huge part of the problem.

When a religion is found to be cheer-leading for contributing to morally and ethically indefensible offenses against human rights, it has become a force for evil - if that word is to have any useful meaning at all, it must be applied when it fits.

"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

As an individual, I have always felt it best to avoid large concentrations of stupid people who are easily provoked to violence, since I'm disinclined to join another gang to spread the risk. Unfortunately, the larger the church, the more likely that is to be illustrative of it's character - a gang of stupid people, easily led toward doing evil things "for the greater good."

It needn't be that way, of course; outcomes depend on leadership in all such situations - but currently there is a bias toward a particularly brainless form of unquestioning obedience to Higher Authority that has only been seen infrequently since - well, the Crusades come to mind.

If that boils down to a political stand, well, that's unfortunate trending toward disastrous. But it is also a reasonably accurate assessment. One cannot be intellectually honest about the critical issues facing the human race at the moment and support to any degree the visions of the US Republican movement, ignore it's entanglement with the Dominionist Christian movement or the greater entanglements with various world Conservative political, social and religious movements - none of which have any use for free minds or free peoples with their own individual, functioning consciences.

"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." - Barry Goldwater

This is true even when one is generally inclined to highly value the very virtues that Conservatives most often pay lip-service to. Alas, it is no more than lip-service. It is no virtue to defend torture and oppression in the name of "liberty." That is not what Goldwater was speaking of. He would have called it something rather blunt and rude - theocratic stupidity, perhaps, or worse. But it was not his conservatism, much less my own. I'm a progressive Conservative - not a conservative Progressive.

Liberty University may have what some may consider a "vibrant social life," no doubt it contains many puppy and kitten lovers, and be blessed with the occasional rainbow, but none of those things are due to it being in service of anything ethical, moral, respectable or good.

It is a place that stands for intolerable, indefensible ideas and ideals. I will not tolerate them in the name of tolerance - particularly when such people making such choices based on such conspicuous stupidity have done their best to make things far worse than circumstances required.

Liberals, atheists, abortionists, would-be gun controllers and Godless Democrats were not responsible for Katrina, or for deciding that torture was a good policy. A case may be made for failure to oppose, certainly for a conspicuous lack of moral courage - but the case cannot be made for creating the situation in the first place.

Shall we speak of the perfect expression of all that is NeoCon philosophy - Hurricane Katrina? It featured evil for all occasions; sloth, incompetence, racism, religious bigotry, naked greed for the land occupied by "undeserving minorities," and of course, none of this has been in the slightest bit alleviated by government response to the aftermath of the situation they allowed to develop and than failed to address. They chose, instead, to metaphorically and in some rather conspicuous cases, literally attribute that disaster to the "sins" of New Orleans and declare that help would be against "God's Will."

But that's not any God I'd be on speaking terms with. I hope I may be forgiven for my hope that the distinction may become manifest in their lives. "Full measure, pressed down and running over."

I'm done with "Do as you be done by." It's time for "Ms. Bedonebyasyoudid."

Creepiest Search Engine Hit so far.

Apr 6

06:42:53 PM

www.google.com

downloadable purity ball invitations

2006_04_16_archive.html

EWWW! Have I not made my position known? I hope they got an eyeful.

Open question for the putative peanut gallery: I can make one on Zazzle. Should I? A really, really creepy one, with a picture of Jonbenet Ramsey?

"Creationism" - an insult to any Creator worth seeking.

The Stupid; It Burns! Mug by webcarve

Properly, I should have created a really impressive looking "Master's Degree" certificate as the proper header - perhaps with an abstract background executed in crayon and finger-paint - but there are depths to which I cannot descend even in jest.

To me, it's an insult to even have to consider this matter, much less have to stoop to mocking it. And yet, here it is, a steaming pile of stupid, communicated in an incredulous tweet.

- Texans, please don't let this flat-earth BS happen - bill proposed to grant Master's in Creationism. http://tinyurl.com/c25qsh

Twittering about twittery of this sort has been a House Blend Special since before twitter existed. :)

Oh. My. God. The inmates are running the asylum in the Lone Star State legislature:

Bill Would Allow Texas School to Grant Master's Degree in Science for Creationism.

State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) proposed House Bill 2800 when he learned that The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), a private institution that specializes in the education and research of biblical creationism, was not able to receive a certificate of authority from Texas' Higher Education Coordinating Board to grant Master of Science degrees.

Berman's bill would allow private, non-profit educational institutions to be exempt from the board's authority.

"If you don't take any federal funds, if you don't take any state funds, you can do a lot more than some business that does take state funding or federal funding," Berman says. "Why should you be regulated if you don't take any state or federal funding?" HB 2800 does not specifically name ICR; it would allow any institution that meets its criteria to be exempt from the board's authority. But Berman says ICR was the inspiration for the bill because he feels creationism is as scientific as evolution and should be granted equal weight in the educational community.

"I don't believe I came from a salamander that crawled out of a swamp millions of years ago," Berman told FOXNews.com. "I do believe in creationism. I do believe there are gaps in evolution.

I've linked first to the House Blend because there, the discussion is of fairly high caliber while the source Pam cites, Oliver Willis - well, there it is being treated with the respect it properly deserves.

"Texas Engages In A Whole New Breed Of Stupid: Master's Degree For Creationism."

Now, speaking as a Theist who does believe that there is a Prime Cause - I cannot bear the stupidity that is creationism. I don't think that if there is a Creator, that we would be created with critical facilities in order to not apply them and I cannot begin to tell you how utterly farcical Creationism and ID is.

Any proper scientific theory, indeed, even a respectable theological hypothesis must first, last and always deal honestly with facts in evidence. Even theology has standards of evidence and, as a discipline, puts a high value upon critical review.

When you try and simply dismiss facts that incontrovertibly exist (whatever you may make of them) while making naked assertions, such as the claim in ID that each species was created as it is, just as it is now, with the expectation that they should be taken as seriously as, say, transitional fossils in the geological record, the proper response is not to "consider the evidence." An assertion is not evidantary. A rationalization of scripture is not even an hypothesis, much less a theory.

If the goatherd's creation myth differs from the geological record, if it's proposed timeline does not match the data gathered by cosmology and paleontology, if it's modern expression is contradicted by experiment - then the goatherd's story loses. The goatherd's Rabbi would have told you, had you a time machine and could have asked. Who the hell do you think developed and founded the whole search for The Meaning Of It All? Who sharpened and codified the tools of the intellect? Who developed the idea that this sort of thing was worth writing down and discussing? These are the people who's efforts and thoughts created and defined the scientific method itself!

The abomination that is ID, Creationism, and more boldly, the bankrupt and ignorant theology that is what has become known in general as "American Conservative Protestantism," from it's thin white skin to it's bitter core of intolerance is founded upon a denial of the whole root, branch, tree and fruit of the genuine spiritual explorations of the last ten thousand years. It is a most damnable counterfeit, and their first response to anyone resembling Jesus would be to waterboard him to find the rest of his terrorist sleeper cell.

The absolutely proper response is to treat it as an impertinent fraud upon the public. And that's how it is treated by people smart enough to tell shit from shinola.

Moreover, let us take this further; the sheer, mind boggling contempt for intellectual rigor and critical thought will absolutely ensure that nobody associated with "creation theory," anyone foolish and deluded enough to invest a scintilla of their life-path into this onanistic cargo-cult mockery will, by definition, never approach any understating of creation or Creator worth having - any more than the associated social understandings and political imperatives have contributed in the slightest measure to a nation worth living in.

I say this while being personally convinced that the Universe is pervaded with intelligence, that there is, for want of a more precise concept, a God/Essence; one who is ultimately knowable and that we must certainly be intended to make the effort. We have, after all, been given the tools. And at the very least, if you believe in intentional Creation, must not the tools imply the task?

Don't bitch about what that hearty shovel digs up. There it is. Cope.

Truth is truth and facts are facts; the understandings of primitive goat-herders cannot be assumed to be superior to our own, if we are achieve progress toward knowing what is yet unknown, embracing the unknowable implications of such discoveries that may present themselves.

And that, of course, is the problem. When you achieve a a greater understanding, one often has to come to terms that one's previous worldview was limited, childish, possibly even a tad delusional.

Well, faced with such a fate - and such a potential loss of revenue and influence over the willful fools that prefer comforting lies to uncomfortable truths, lies will be produced. Evident lies, lies that are an insult to fine, professional liars of all ages.

The utter, batshit, false-to-fact, hysterical assault on reason and critical thought that Creationists have mounted underlines this. Treating them with respect traduces the very concept of "respectable."

Vive La Evolution 2 T-Shirt by webcarve

If you don't like your faith being ridiculed - don't support ridiculous arguments that presume upon your faith.

H/t Pam Spaulding, whom I adore for her delightfully tactical irreverence.

Andy at Eleventh Avenue South reports that the local anti-gay organization rounded up a group of religious zealots who fear catastrophic end times will result if gay and lesbian couples are able to marry in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Family Council says it will introduce an amendment banning same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in Minnesota in the next few days. The group announced the new amendment push at a press conference with fundamentalist religious leaders on Tuesday.

Those leaders put forward a multi-faith diatribe against gay and lesbian relationships stating that should gays marry, the world would end.

"If everyone is a gay, this world will cease to exist in 10 years," said Ikram ul-Huq, the imam and religious director of the Muslim Community Center of Bloomington.

"Homosexual unions are forbidden and cannot be licensed with the term marriage," said Rabbi Moshe Feller, Shliach of the Rebbe to the Upper Midwest, a Chabad-Lubavitch sect of Hasidic Judaism.

"We see this as a pivotal issue to life, not just for our nation but the life we have known for 3,000 years," said Tom Parrish, administrative pastor of Hope Lutheran Church. Parrish represents Hope Lutheran Church, whose senior pastor, Tom Brock, raised some eyebrows in 2003 when he insisted the 9/11 attacks were God's wake up call.

"That's a lifestyle that God says is sinful," Brock said of homosexuality in 2003.

The reason their collective panties are in a bunch is that there a bill has been introduced (by Sen. John Marty and Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis), in both the Senate and House that if passed would make Minnesota's marriage laws gender neutral. According to the AP, it's unlikely the legislation will make it out of committee.

Digg Link for Pam's Post

The ridiculous part here is that a religion, properly speaking, teaches you how to live a better life. If, in order to achieve that, it must force other people to conform so that adherents can be unaware of workable counter-examples, it's not a religion - it's a sort of boutique government, a theocracy with neither sufficient power to produce good outcomes or the moral advantage needed to be genuinely persuasive.

That objection comes even before we address the merit of the proposition to be imposed from any more abstract angle, ethical, moral or scriptural.

Oh, and since all these fine religious leaders are using arguments from authority right out of the gate - you have every reason to be quite skeptical as to the merit of all moral and scriptural arguments. The utilitarian ones, I believe, are well disposed of already.

I'm perfectly capable of saying this while being a person with a strong preference against having sex with men. I'll go a step further - I'm an androphobe. I don't even want male friends. It takes me bad places in my head, places that I cannot help going when men are around, having to do with social dominance issues.

But, you see, this is MY issue. It colors MY relationships. It defines what sort of relationships will work for me and what ones cannot work, regardless of the quality of people involved. And it really doesn't matter whether I "should" be able to have this relationship or "shouldn't" be able to have that one. It makes far, FAR more sense to concentrate on the positive - a solid relationship built on the things that make me feel good and happy and make it possible to make someone else feel good about being in a relationship with me.

Having done that, and having that relationship prove it's mutual value every day in the face of being nothing like what people would assume, based as it is on mutual social needs and unfortunate experiences that to understand would require explanations of the TMI variety, it's perhaps somewhat simpler for me to see the unstated and deliberately unaccounted costs of forcing all human relationships into a few approved molds. It also tends to reveal to me the degree to which arguments against homosexual relationships are driven by outright phobic irrationality.

Now, phobic overreactions do not make those natural variations in affinity disappear. The irrational reaction forces them underground, where their manifestations will become unconscious or perverted to various degrees, which are then taken to be proof of inherent, rather than circumstantial depravity. To the degree homosexual unions are "sinful," (a mistake, in the Hebrew), it would be in large part due to the social and psychological costs imposed from outside and the difficulty, for most people, of living outside of cultural sanctions that guide and advantage most of us in our daily lives.

I could easily argue that the common, scriptural arguments against homosexuality and legal recognition of homosexual couples are at best tenuous, but that is to miss the more important point. Many religions do impose arbitrary restrictions upon the behavior of their adherents, and there is, arguable merit to making such voluntary sacrifices, if one can.

But whatever merit such voluntary sacrifice may have vanishes if they are imposed by fiat upon all, when an argued moral good becomes mere conformity imposed by law. Such moralisms inevitably and predictably lead to immoral actions in their imposition and outcomes, and inevitably also lead to a numbing of the moral and ethical sensibility of their advocates, for in order to argue the benefits of imposing them, they have to dissociate themselves from any responsibility for negative outcomes caused by their willful and unjust desire to interfere in the moral agency of others.

Violence is done - and not merely to those the religion decides to attack. Not even most significantly in this particular case, for regardless of the precise arrangement of laws, the recognition of committed homosexual marriage is a fact. That is to say, anyone who cares to investigate knows that it's as possible for homosexual couples to maintain a committed and stable relationship as it is for heterosexual couples - even in the significant absence of religious sanction and support.

A religion that finds itself in argument with both reality and the obvious human rights issues of deserves to be questioned in regards to it's actual substantive support OF human rights. It seems to me to be exceptionally questionable that one can support human rights in general while advocating particular exemptions.

And indeed, these moral absurdities long ago led me to question the reason and rationale of their justification, which in turn led me to study the foundations of the arguments for myself. And, as I've stated, I found the arguments to be, at best, questionable. When I raised that question - well, you may well imagine the answers I got.

Dismissive and disrespectful responses to questions of significant and personal moral uncertainty are not proper for any person claiming moral authority. Their authority must be founded in a clear mastery of the moral and ethical universe. They must be conversant with the full range of human nature, nor should their council tend toward the violent and abusive, for one can get that for free, simply by posing the same question to any randomly selected, culturally isolated ignoramus.

In other words - the arguments given by the "moral authorities" cited above are persuasive that they do not have any genuine, authoritative understanding of the moral and ethical dimensions of the foundation of their principles or the unsanitary and unsavory outcomes of their imposition over the last few hundred years.

You'd be better advised to read what text scriptures you like for your own benefit and come to your own conclusions than rely upon the advice of such fools as these. (allow me to commend unto your study the writings of St. Julian of Norwich.)

However, it's fair to state that these are exceptional fools, speaking to an issue that seems to provoke exceptional foolishness. There are fools in every profession. It's wise to cultivate the skills that make discernment between wisdom and foolishness possible, for all wise men are fools in spots.

Values Clarification and Update: The American Family Association has come out against a UN declaration condemning countries that put homosexuals to death, on the grounds that such a condemnation might cause a slippery slope toward tolerance.

Robert Wood, Acting Spokesman for the UN issued the following statement today:

The United States supports the UN Statement on “Human Rights, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity,” and is pleased to join the other 66 UN member states who have declared their support of this Statement that condemns human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity wherever they occur.

The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world. As such, we join with the other supporters of this Statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora.

And the anti-gay religious organization AFA responded with the following:

The Obama administration and other proponents of a United Nations statement that calls for the decriminalization of homosexuality claim it merely targets the seven countries that put homosexuals to death. But one pro-family activist [that would be the AFA] warns the document elevates homosexual behavior to skin color and religious belief.

Yes, it's so very offensive to Christianity that one equate killing someone for their skin color or religion be compared to, say, beating a gay to death and claiming the right to celebrate it.

"Christians" like this bode fair to putting Hell into receivership, due to unfair competition.

Tired of Chromefishtians fleecing your flock?

Some ideas are simple enough to fit on a bumper-sticker. This is one of them.

Activist Christian Bumpersticker Template by webcarve

I don't usually think in social terms. I'm on the autistic spectrum, I do not like crowds, I have few friends and honestly prefer it that way. But every once in a while, it occurs to me that I'm rather unusual in that regard, that social networking is important - and that the networks you use sharply influence what we are capable of accomplishing - for good or ill.

Churches have been becoming less and less likely to achieve good things because real christians - those who define themselves in terms of the words in red attributed to Christ - have become more and more marginalized by Dominionist and Prosperity Gospel ... oh, not to put too fine a point on it, heresies.

I belong to no church, myself, and while I try to live according to those words in red, don't feel the need to assume, much less assert the divinity of Christ in order to think them important. Heck, if he didn't feel the need to make an inarguable, definitive statement, one way or the other, perhaps that was the point. Read the words. The words are the point. Said by anyone else, they would mean just the same thing.

I feel that if you need divine authority for something to be believable, then your God-given facility of reason and critical thinking has been sinfully neglected! I've read those red words a fair bit, and they are pretty plain words speaking to obvious truths, couched in words accessible to plain folks. It takes a lot of theology to get in the way of them, so I prefer to abstain from that particular vice.

But as I said, I don't network much and I can afford to be an iconoclastic freethinker. I don't need to put up with folks who disagree with me, or differ about things I consider essential.

But others do, and the more they do differ, the less likely they are to notice to what degree the context they are in gets in the way of doing things in a classically Christian way. I'm not speaking from a "moral high ground" but rather from a varient perspective enforced upon me by my brain's odd wiring. If I could fit in, I would be just as strongly affected by groupthink. Actually, looking back on life, it would be more strongly - I've never perfected boundary skills to the extent that most have.

So I offer ideas, thoughts and tools - like the bumpersticker above - to benefit the likeminded faithful. Now, while I'd prefer you paid my markup - it's about the idea. Ask me nice, tell me what you are about and I'm likely to donate my work to you.

AIDS Baby Proper Punishment for Promiscuity

Your tax dollars at work, Colorado:

Attention: Col. Senate Minority Leader

It's amazing what sorts of bottom-feeding idiots get sent to State Houses. Indeed, the best argument against the principle of State's Rights is the caliber of people tasked to exercise them. In particular, the election and continuance in office of Col. State Sen. Dave Schultheis makes me wonder if Colorado has a state legislature qualified to legislate.

Yes, it's also a problem here in Canada. We actually have States that work like States; US States are in practice Provinces of a strong central government. And clearly, that's a good thing.

It is wise to remember that this was the single dissenting voice against a perfectly reasonable law that mandated HIV testing for pregnant mothers. But it's important to note that this person voted in a way that would likely embarrass one of the fictional patriarchs from "A Handmaid's Tale."

State Sen. Dave Schultheis restated his opposition to a bill requiring HIV tests for pregnant women by claiming that infected babies would cause families to “see the negative consequences of that promiscuity.”

The Colorado Springs Republican with a penchant for foot-in-mouth moments tells The Rocky Mountain News in a follow-up story to Wednesday’s Senate floor controversy:

“What I’m hoping is that, yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that,” he said. “The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.”

Yes, Schultheis really said he is “hoping” people “have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby …”

Here in canada, it would not be terribly surprising to have something equally idiotic said in public by someone too dim-witted to realize they were committing an act of conspicuous stupidity, something so stupid that it could be used as a club to beat his political party with. I mean, we don't have intelligence tests as a precondition for citizenship, either. Alas. Mark my words, these words WILL matter in the next election. Heck, I can see ways to use them against the Republican Party as a whole.

The question is, though, what happens next. In Canada, well, we don't like being made to feel conspicuous by idiots. We are a genuinely Conservative nation in the "no sudden moves and no loud noises" way. This is true even of our rabid socialists. One may be a radical without being, you know, rude about it...

So, while it is to be understood, I think, by all beings of ordinary intelligence possessing an uncompromised senes of moral higyne that such an utterance probably indicates a person incapable of being held properly accountable in a legal or even social sense, nonetheless it would be reflexive to ensure - here - that it could not be thought to be the position of the party, or the leadership.

(And counting the vote tally, we can assume this to be true - even in Colorado.)

However, it's a shame that the Republican Senate Leader is, clearly, infected with the sort of Liberalism that republicans accuse Democrats of, the sort that is "so open minded, he's let his brain fall out." His response to this scandalous statement is as follows:

“People are entitled to their opinions,” the Grand Junction Republican said. “It’s not my job to go around and censure people and tell them what to say.”

Funny, MY understanding of Republican party discipline would suggest that is EXACTLY the job of the Senate Minority Leader. And even if that sort of rigid party discipline would not be the ideal of a Conservative or Liberal intetellectual engaged in the hard work of practical democracy in a functional Republic, as envisioned in the Constitution, there absolutely must be some recognition that there ARE limits when speaking with an -D or an -R after the name. Hm.

The previous paragraph might be difficullt for an electable Republican to parse. Let me put it more succinctly:

The proper response to this sort of public cornholing, Sir, is not to pretend you are large enough to accomodate it without discomfort.

The proper response is to kick the fool from your caucus; for otherwise, people must assume that all your work is contaminated with "contributions" of equal, manifest, conspicous stupidity - and that you, sir, are incapable and unqualified to discern the difference between shit and shinola.

I do hope some motion of censure passes by acclimation. Although, frankly, a recall petition is probably the more appropriate response. Should there not be - well, I suppose we must all conclude that he does actually serve as a legitimate representative of his constuancy.

A constituancy that clearly has no moral right to the franchise. By the way - is it possible that I might have to explain why Schultheis' statement is deeply offensive and utterly immoral from first principles, Christian or otherwise?

It takes more than a chrome fish, pal Sticker by webcarve

Obama's Inaugural Fuckup

I probably don't feel as crushed as my politically queer friends and inspirations do by Obama's choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation.

Most are focusing on Warren's anti-gay activism, and it's certainly important. But it's the part of the iceberg above the water. I'm concerned about the iceberg itself. Warren is a front-line Culture Warrior and he's across the trenches from me. So, this leads me to ask, aloud; on which side will Obama be?

Obama says he wants this to be "the most inclusive Inaugural ever." Well and good; well and good; but there ARE some positions that you cannot include without implying a degree of tolerance. I, along with a great many people, feel that certain ideas cannot, may not, must not be tolerated. I say this as a red-letter Christian and a diligent student of both Constitutional Democracy and the values and theology of people like Wright.

For myself, I'm unwilling to include in my zone of tolerance anyone who claims a fundamental right to DENY human rights to other people for any reason, and I am even more unwilling to tolerate a person willing to bear false witness - as an ordained minister - in order to achieve a political goal.

Via The Box Turtle Bulletin

This is the same Rick Warren who recently said that the relationships of his “many gay friends” are no different from child rape, incest or polygamy. He also jumped on the paranoia bandwagon surrounding same-sex marriage by falsely claiming that Prop 8’s failure somehow would have overturned the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and religion. (It can’t. No law or state constitution can.).

I would not stand on the same stage with the man. It's a damn ignorant signal for a man who is both a religious man and a Constitutional scholar. It's not at all an "inclusive" move. It is, on the contrary, a very much disinclusive move.

Senator - I'm disappointed. I expected to be, but I'm surprised at how stunningly symbolic a betrayal this is; how very visceral. How very tone deaf.

Let me be blunt, Mr. Obama; whether you like it or not, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, there IS a culture war in America. It HAS been declared on the American people by leaders like Warren, like James Dobson, like the late and unlamented Jerry Falwall.

Nor is it just about abortion and marriage rights. In fact, these are mostly smokescreen issues. Pick almost any urgent issue facing us; the economy, the climate crisis, health care, human rights, globalism - and you will find them squarely on the wrong side. When they have been given power to address these issues - and Bush did a lot of that - they consistently made things far worse than mere lack of qualification and intelligence would suggest.

Nope; it's a matter of policy; policy that believes that not only are unbelievers going to hell, but that they should be sent there as a matter of state policy.

Check the Christian Broadcasting Network site, or the Focus on the Family site, or any of the other official organs. Check out the whole Dominionist movement. Warren is not merely associated - his church is at the forefront.

Here's what Discernment Ministries says about Dominionism:

The dominionist’s kingdom must be advanced on Earth by gaining control of governments (State), utilizing business (Corporations) and partnering with social sector (Church) institutions. New bridges are being built based on triangular relationship between all three sectors of society. The Church is forming partnerships (or collaborations) with State and/or Corporate interests in order to implement dominion. Peter Drucker, the management guru, was instrumental in overseeing the implementation of this agenda – to create a three-legged “healthy society” globally – via Rick Warren of purpose-driven fame. Warren was mentored by Drucker, as were a number of other evangelical leaders such as Bob Buford of Leadership Network. Buford trained an entire generation of aspiring megachurch pastors in Drucker’s social philosophies. The megachurches are based on the Drucker corporate business model. Drucker’s ideas also undergird the faith-based (Church-State) movement which has been politically championed by the neoconservatives in Washington.²¹ Dominionism is significantly breaking down the walls between Church and Corporations (see point 4 below). In brief, the three-legged stool of dominionism looks like this:

CORPORATE + STATE = Fascism

STATE + CHURCH = Faith-based

CHURCH + CORPORATE = Fusion –
the Merchant Church

I cite them because they are about as rock-ribbed a source as I could find.

Don't even speak to me of compromise with such, Sir; it's incompatible with oath you intent to take at the Inaugural.

These people believe they have the right and duty to oppress others. They oppose the rights of people. They are utterly and implacably opposed to all that is Constitutional and Ethical. And, given half a chance and a bottle of Jim Beam, they would happily drag you to death behind their Humvees.

Sir, the Inauguration is about symbolism. This is not a good symbol. It's even worse policy. And it's exactly what your policy will end up being if you lie down with these dogs.

Credit: Chromefishtian Sticker by webcarve