Is Your Bible Too "Liberal"? Change It!

You had to know this one was coming. A bunch of wingnuts are now engaged in rewriting their holy bible to give it a more conservative -- a more freemarket -- slant.

As with so many things lately, I thought it was a joke, a parody. But when it comes to the wingnuttery in this country, they are doing so much batshit crazy stuff that it's really hard to come up with something that would clearly be parody. Remember Poe's Law?

You can check this out over at the so-called Conservapedia (I won't provide the link since I don't want to drive up their stats). While they don't specifically say it, I'm sure that they're going to make some major changes to the "red letter" stuff in the New Testament, especially all that wimpy-wussy nancy-boy proto-hippie Jesus crap:

• Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9]
• Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39]
• I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5:44]
• If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. [John 8:7]
• Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.]
• Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy [Matthew 5:7]
• But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. [Matthew 6:15]
• Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.]
• Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 19:23]
• You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]
• Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. [Matthew 22:21]
• Love your neighbor as yourself. [Matthew 22:39]
• So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you. [Matthew 7:12.]
• If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. [Matthew 19:21]
• But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13&14.]

Like I say, you had to know it was coming. For a long time these precepts have been a major discomfort to those in the Prosperity Theology camp, seeing as how the teachings of Joshua bar Joseph, aka Jesus, are pretty much all antithetical to the Bizarro-World Christian theology promoted by the Religious Right.

They've gotten away with it this long because I would hazard a guess that upwards of 90% of all professed believers in Christianity have never actually read their holy book.

That aside, it was something that had to happen. Too many people have been pointing out over the years that they are wrong, and all you have to do is look at their bible to prove it. So the obvious answer? If what you are doing and saying contradicts your "holy text", change the text!

It would not surprise me if they came up with an answer to that awkward question, "Who Would Jesus Bomb?"

Iran. Followed by all Muslim infidels. Followed by anyone else they want.

After all, war is good business, and their Jesus will, I am sure, be firmly on the side of Big Business in their new holy writ.

The Great Debate on a Social Network

It started out simply enough with me putting a link to the CREDO Mobile story Tell Sarah Palin: Violent threats have consequences on a popular Social Networking site:

We must put a stop to the escalating hate rhetoric of the right and its very specific calls to armed violent action. Lines of decency have been crossed, and Sarah Palin has a special responsibility and opportunity in the wake of the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

First response:

Billie: Bullshit

Me: Thank you for the well-reasoned dialog

Her: You're welcome. It describes all this "let's blame the right instead of the shooter" crap perfectly.

2nd Party joins in.

Yousef: yup. things happen in a vacuum. no one is influenced by anything.except holy wars, crusaders, sun tans and right-wingers. lol

Her: The routine use of imagery by both parties in a culture obsessed with "battleground" states is nothing new. A nearly identical map, included in a Democratic Leadership Committee publication in 2004, featured nine bulls-eyes over regions where Republican candidates were considered vulnerable that year, and was accompanied by a caption reading: TARGETING STRATEGY. A smaller caption, beneath the bulls-eyes, read: BEHIND ENEMY LINES. The map illustrated an article on campaign strategy by Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute. SoSarah is not the only one to use this kind of stuff, but I guess only the Democrats get a pass. It's metaphorical for crying out loud as Obama's "if they bring a knife to a fight we'll bring a gun" comment was. There was a rush to judgment by the left almost immediately BEFORE any details were known about anything or anybody. The biggest culprit was the Pima County sheriff who was/is supposed to be conducting an investigation NOT spewing his political opinions. I find his credibility in question anyway since he enforces laws only he thinks he should. It's not his place to decide. His oath demands he enforce all laws, not just those he decides in his infinite wisdom are worthy. He's not a judge.he's a sheriff.

Yousef: Point taken. But Dem's don't lie about using it. At least I don't. But then I don't use weaponry as an analogy or an excuse. If we want to be semantic.bulls eye targets are antiquated. The use of a sniper scopes cross-hair is not. :)

Me: I am not saying that the Dems don't use it, but do two wrongs make a right? You know that I am well-armed liberal, but even I have to gag when I see ALL of the "war" imagery used in political contests. And the right wing uses it more than the Dems by a factor of 10 (or more) to 1. When you couch all your political speeches using the metaphor of war ("Don't retreat, reload!" etc.) it is not conducive to reasoned political discourse. I've actually been to war, unlike the vast majority of Republican politicians, and I take it kind of personally when they appropriate the language from the battlefield to the political field. War is one of the very worst things that a person can endure, and its metaphors should never be used lightly or blithely. Again the Republicans are way out in front on this, and no reasonable thinking person can deny that.

And another thing. Here is a list (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/terror-arizona-just-another-isolated) of "lone nuts" who were unwitting recipients of Hate Radio's constant drumbeat of war. I challenge anyone to come up with an equivalent list of wackjob liberals who have committed similar crimes, let alone ones who were provoked by, say, Keith Olbermann or Thom Hartmann .

And these incidents are from just in the last two-and-a-half years!

Yousef: Has nothing or had nothing to do with politics in Arizona either. LMAO.

Me: And here's another bunch of examples of rightwing hate speech: http://opovet.blogspot.com/2011/01/just-little-taste.html Again, show me a matching list of liberals who have said similar things

Her: Your first list Farnsworth is chock full of extremists and they certainly do not echo what I believe in or most of us on the "other side".For example, I'm a pro-lifer but would never think of killing a doctor or bombing a clinic. The overwhelming majority of us wouldn't either and condemn the ones who do. Since you mentioned Michelle Malkin check this out on her website..michellemalkin.com." The progressive "climate of hate:" An illustrated primer, 2000-2010.." No, I didn't count the number of hate filled things to compare with your list. There's plenty to see there if you'll look at it.It's enough to say that your side as well as mine has it's nuts. That what this loon was that shot up Tucson..nutty.. Some on blogs and comment sites have even gone so far as to lump the despicable Westboro Baptist Church( I say church loosely) in with us mainstream Christians. Fred Phelps and his "Phreaks" make me sick and I have fought them for years even when they came to protest a young soldier's funeral in our area.Don't want to get in a pissing contest with you Farnsworth, but there's plenty of questionable stuff to go around and to pull back a little and tone it down wouldn't hurt on ALL sides. But to blame this shooting on Conservatives is all wrong. I would have liked to have seen some of this outrage from the left when Major Hassan killed our soldiers at Ft. Hood and wounded 30 or others. Instead for weeks we were "told"(by the left of course) not to jump to conclusions that he had was leaning toward radical Islam.Don't want to offend anyone don't 'cha know. But, within a few short hours these left-wing folks were screaming this Tucson shooting in part was due to Sarah Palin and others vitrolic, speech. Nuts are nuts and we need to realize it and make THEM responsible for their actions, A molestor of children is just that and is responsible for what he/she does. I don't give a damn how bad or good his/her childhood was he/she still had a choice to not harm a child. The responsibility is on them if they do and I have no sympathy for them at all. Same goes with these nuts that do the sort of thing that happened in Tucson, Ft Hood, abortion clinics.schools, work places etc. Put the blame where it belongson the guy that did it.

Yousef: funny thingextremists always look and act like the rest of us. If they didn't we could just point and click them to a holding cell. Extremists are by nature cultural chameleons. But the particular psyche does aggregate in certain ways that shed light on tendencies..

Me: I'm not trying to paint with a broad brush. I embrace reasonable and non-strident socially-conscious conservatives, but you know it's always the extremists who get the focus. Remember after 9-11, when every Muslim in the world was our enemy (and many on the right still feel that way)? The ones who commandeered those planes were extremists, but this country had a problem -- and still does -- accepting that.

Her: Point taken Farnsworth. Peace.

Then a new player, John, joins the discussion:

John: Maybe everyone should read the Koran or Quoran , when Mohamad calls his followers ,whether moderates or extremists ,they are required to KILL the non-beleivers of THEIR god , if you are not a muslim believer YOU are an infidel ;one who does not believe in a particular religion . WHAT part do you not understand ??? And I am NOT a right winger , I believe in JESUS CHRIST , and GOD and COUNTRY .

Me: I agree. The Holy Book of any religion can be misused by its adherents.

Take a look at this list of items, which includes genocide, violence, rape, forced marriages, infanticide, and even cannibalism. opovet.blogspot.com/2010/10/more-scary-stuff-from-quran.html

Her: Line 20 in this with the reference to Allah proves to me it's not my Bible. You're correct though Farnsworth, anyone can take out of context written or spoken words and twist them to suit their own particular purpose(s).

Yousef: @John yes you should. And you should read the Qur'an. As i have read and have a copy of the Red Letter Bible. also read the historical footnotes that put each verse of the Qur'an in context. What all of you would soon understand of is that the Qur'an was primarily revealed to those present. In the context of their particular plight of a historical tale to them. Not as a harbinger of future behavior necessarily. So just using line 20 as a reference is the usual gross ignorance and is typical of people who feel victimized. I am flag waiving American as Farnsworth can attest. But don't gloat on what Fox News passes for your education of the Qur'an or the Middle East or it's inhabitants.

Her: Yousef, What I meant by that reference to line 20 was simply that my religion does not refer to God as Allah. Sorry if I was unclear on that point. I am a member of The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod which is conservative by many standards, but we are not right-wing nuts. We have folks in our congregation who are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, students from our local university,blue collar working people, professors,small business owners,teachers, doctors and all manner of folks.. ..each of us having our own political views.. The thing that ties us together is our faith and what our creed teaches us. We do not preach politics from the pulpit. We preach the Gospel.

Yousef: Actually it does. The literal translation of 'God' as the omnipotent in Arabic is 'Allah'. All the churches in Nazareth as elsewhere in Arabic speaking countries use that teem as well as the Latin.

John: Yousef , I believe in Jesus Christ , He is my God , I do not believe in allah as being the I AM ; what does your Qur'an tell you that you are to do with me ???

Me: @Billie-- did you read the whole thing? Those are NOT lines from the Qu'ran, but from the Old Testament, my point being that every religion that has a "Holy Book" has crap like this. And exactly WHERE in the Qu'ran is the quote that Muslims must kill all infidels? See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080827235128AAY0Asq

Her: Farnsworth, I have to admit I have never heard of this Xian Bible so I looked it up and from what I can see, I'm disturbed by it. It seems as though whoever put it together is very hateful. Did they speak the truth or put stuff in it to suit their own purposes? I'll have to do more reading about it when I find the time to do so and speak with some folks who might be able to shed more light on it for me.Besides, although we still read scripture from the Old Testament, Christians use the New Testament as the basis for their faith.

Me: It's actually shorthand for the "Christian" Bible, Xian being a play on words from the early Christians in hiding in Rome, who left an "X" on walls to show their belief in Christ. The "X" of course representing the Cross. While I applaud you for your concentrating on the New Testament, so many of the Religious Right are fond of quoting the Old Testament in their hatred of, for example, gay people, and their insistence on the Ten Commandments being displayed in the public square. And you are right, you ought to be disturbed by what you read. Is this really who we want to be as a society? The Religious Right thinks

Yousef: If one reads the whole of the Qur'an and understands it's historical context then it tells Muslims to respect as respected. Pretty much the same as any monotheistic religion. I've heard these taunts before. You dint know the Qur'an better than I so any inflammatory Fox news jabs from a misquoted verse isn't going to win you much defensiveness from me. Just a chuckle and recognition that P. T. Barnum was a genius. And I mean that toward both Muslims and Christians. :). The Jews as a people probably know their history and Book better than the rest of us. And the concept of replacing the Trinity by using the single consciousness of Jesus as the only god-conscious is purely an American invention. Anywhere else and still in the Roman Catholic church the trinity still recognizes the prophet (human body) of Jesus. For me the justification of a Trinity is murky at best. Mind you that I've spent many more hours in Catholic school and in Baptist churches than in a mosque. This has been done primarily to separate connection with Aramaic and Arabic. The original languages of the Bible. Besides it's easier for both sides to justify war this way. ;)

John: I asked a very straight forward question , I did not get a straight answer.If a person does not "submit" to Allah ,or accept the Muslim faith ,What does the Qur'an say to do with them??????

Me: What does the Christian Bible say about it? My point is that you can do the "cafeteria plan" on ANY piece of Holy Writ and find something that will allow you to do what you want to do anyway. See the quotations from the Old Testament on the earlier link. And what do we make of these quotations from the Old Testament:

"..devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. "

"But of the cities of these peoples which God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them."

"We took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain." I have a lot more of these, as you can see at opovet.blogspot.com/2010/08/it-is-will-of-allah.html

John: After Christ died on the cross, christians live under the new covenant of the new testament . Old testament violence is no more .

But Islam has things called Surah and Quran texts 8:12-13 that say pretty much the same thing ; " I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, therefore strike off their heads and strike off every finger tip of them." I see Yousef did not want to answer . I have another for Yousef ; What does the word "subjugate" mean to you ?????

Surah 9:5 , 2:191-193 ,4:74 ,4:89 ,8:60,8:65 9:29,9:52what do all these verses pertain to ? And there are a few hundred more that tell you to do away with un believers.What I read in my Bible is , my duties are to tell you of GOD'S word ,so you can hear it ,try to bring you to GOD ,if you do not ,He does not tell me to kill you or do away with you . If you do not believe, your punishment is at your own hand and of your own disbelief . My hand will not harm you . You die in your own disbelief .

Me: As I mentioned earlier in this thread, if you truly believe in Jesus Christ and eschew all that God-directed murder in the Old Testament, then I applaud you. But too many of the Religious Right are not really into the Jesus of the New Testament -- too wimpy, I guess, what with all that "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" stuff -- and more into the hellfire and damnation that you find in the Old Testament. More power to you. You have done your duty to spread the word of God to atheists like me. If I choose to go my own way, then, as you say, that's on me

John: Well I am sorry , but I'm not a rihgt winger and Yousef ,your "moderate" friend still won't answer truthfully as to what his Qur'an says to do with non-believers . I gave you the verses, if I'm reading them wrong , then give me the right answer.

Me: What can I say, dude? Yousef is his own man and if he chooses not to respond, that's his choice And here's how the Christian Bible treats unbelievers:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other.

2) do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

My point still being that anyone can take bits and pieces out of their own particular Holy Book to justify their own actions. You cannot deny the truth of that statement. So, as Jesus may have said, "don't worry about the speck of dust in your neighbor's eye when you can't see the two by four in your own."

John: You can't get out of the Old Testament can you my friend ,you did not want to hear what I said , but what I have given you about the Qur'an is what they consider their "new" testament , those verses overide all the old ones . Just as I told you of The New Covenant God made with christians . But like you said ya'll hear only what ya want to .GOD BLESS . And good luck.

Yousef: Well I did answer you John. But it was an attempt at speaking with respect to your intellect because I don't know you. Farnsworth thanks for your Deuteronomy citations. I thought you were actually making my point for a sec! Oh wait you did. I mean we did. But you must have been righter-er cuz it was the bible. Oh wait it was the old one so we don't have to listen to the old god just the new one. Cuz he changed his mind n stuff. Lol

Reread it carefully. I called you a sucka' for a cheap fight: P. T. Barnum reference. LOL why would I do that? Just calling the kettle black dude. You don't even know me and yet you are willing to pick a fight over something you don't know jack shit about. Really. Not jack shit.

Anyway, for every 'killum' bad guy verse in the Qur'an they are usually followed quickly by a short verse or stanza that says something similar to "but the best of you will not (do said thing)or [will] know better.." etc.

You may also find it interesting to know that there is actually a verse that admits the "Arabs of the desert are the -worst- amongst you". You will also note that accusation is made without a reference to a religion but addressed to the larger population of 'you'. Meaning ALL Arabs: lumping Arabs of all three religions into a single accusation.

Then Qur'an also directs us to be respectful of any and all holy site of any religion (admittedly except idolaters. Though I choose to include them). Be honorable and respectful in all our relationships and dealings with the non-believer. In this instance 'non-believer' just means a non-Muslim. But you will likely take offense to it. And also allows unto marry anyone of any religion. Which I did. And glad for it.

If you are ever interested I suggest the Muhammad Asad translation. Born an Austrian Jew he traveled the middle east for his journalist job. His translation has the most historically accurate notes on just about every verse and his formal training in the Torah just adds to his understanding.

But that's assuming you even want to understand someone else outside of what Fox and Rush could tell you. Because they are like smart n stuff.

Me: I have only one last comment, and then I'm bailing out of this conversation. If the New Testament superseded and overruled the Old Testament, then are the Ten Commandments no longer in effect?

If they are still in effect, the Old Testament was not overridden by the New, and then we're back to the pick-and-choose cafeteria plan, which was, I believe, my point in the beginning of all this. People take what they can from their particular Holy Book to justify their actions.

The reason I am bailing is that, as much fun as this has been, none of us is going to "win". We all believe -- or disbelieve -- what we want, and we are free to do so.

You know, no matter what you do, someone is just not going to "get it". I could have gone on with this discussion endlessly, asking, for example, why the Old Testament is bound up with the New if it's been superseded, why so many Xians are so clutchy to the Ten Commandments and ignore the 11th, etc etc etc.

But essentially it's a waste of time arguing with these people. They'll never get it.

Oklahoma Takes Baby Step Towards (Gasp!) Gay Rights

Longtime readers of this blog know that I spent some of my formative youthful years in rural Oklahoma, so I tend to watch the goings-on in my sort-of-home-state.

Which leads me to this story: It seems that Oklahoma, like every other state, tends to open government meetings with a prayer. Yeah, big surprise there. Okay, putting aside the whole church-state issue, recently the Oklahoma House of Representatives session was opened with a prayer by United Church of Christ minister Rev. Scott H. Jones, of the Oklahoma-city based Cathedral of Hope.

The prayer itself -- which you can read here -- was one of those typically namby-pamby jobs calling on the big guy in the sky to bless the poor, help the homeless, cure the sick, blah blah blah, pretty much a by-the-numbers mainstream Xian prayer for a secular occasion. You've heard it all before.

So the ink wasn't dry, so to speak, on the prayer before several members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives started falling all over each other in a rush to keep the prayer from becoming part of the official record of the Oklahoma legislature.

Why? Well, it couldn't have been the content of the prayer itself (aside from the fact that it was one of those prayers that evoked that wimpy forgive-your-enemies Jesus, not the the Jesus of the flaming cross smiting the unbelievers...you know what I mean), so what was it?

Maybe -- and I'm just speculating here -- just maybe it was because the prayer was given by (gasp!) a gay minister!!! Who was asked to give this invocation by (another gasp!) the only openly-gay member of the Oklahoma legislature, Rep. Al McAffrey (D-Oklahoma City).

Naturally the theocrats were all over this like flies on shit, to the point of Rep. John Wright (R-Broken Arrow) calling for a vote on the prayer's inclusion in the official record. However, I am happy -- and proud -- to note that the final vote was this: 64 representatives voting to include the prayer, 20 opposing it, and 17 abstaining.

Sidebar: Of special note in all this was our old buddy, noted fundo-xian/gay basherRep. Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City) who, naturally, voted in favor of exclusion.

Yeah, like keeping it out of the "official" written record is going to undo all the "damage" that this single prayer has done to the great state of Oklahoma.

Sorry, folks, the cat is already out of the bag, the damage has been done, and the fact that 64 Oklahoma state representatives can stick their necks out and vote for the inclusion of this prayer makes me feel good about one of the reddest states in the redstate continiuum. And about my home state.

Victory in South Carolina

A federal judge ruled last week that South Carolina's "I believe" license plate, splattered as it was with that faux stained glass window and the Xian cross, violates the separation of church and state.

Here's a shout out to Judge Cameron M. Currie of Federal District Court for her heroic nerve to stand up to the Religious Right and for upholding our First Amendment rights, saying out loud in open court that the case presents "a textbook example of the need for and continued vitality of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."

Amen to that, Judge Currie.

One Andre Bauer, the lieutenant governor of SC and a prime mover behind the drive to add the license plate to the DMV lineup, of course disagrees. Apparently he was such a dick about the whole thing that the judge felt compelled to single him out in her decision:

Currie further noted that Bauer – in rallies leading up to the passage of the legislation – had characterized the issues in the case as a dispute between atheists, who were able to obtain a special plate, and Christians, who could not. That suggested the measure's aim was to foment political division along religious lines – "one of the principal evils against which the First Amendment was intended to protect," the judge said.
Bauer responded Tuesday, saying he was personally offended by Currie's ruling.
"For those who say proclaiming 'I believe' violates the constitution by giving preference to Christianity, I think this lawsuit clearly discriminates against persons of faith," he said.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State pushed back, arguing that the lawsuit actually prevents discrimination against persons of faith. The Washington, D.C.-based organization cited previous interviews when state lawmakers told media they would not support a Wiccan, Buddhist, or Muslim tag.
"The passage of this license plate made adherents of other faiths feel like second-class citizens," the group stated.

And also a big "good on you" to my friends at AU, who was involved in this case from the beginning. Way to go, gang!

It always floors me when the Religious Right insists on displaying their beliefs in public, anywhere and everywhere they can, especially in light of those pesky admonitions of Joshua Bar Joseph (aka Jesus) on the subject (KJV Matthew 6:5 through 6:8):

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
[Of course there are other versions of this, depending on which translation you rely on, but I intentionally used the KJV, since that is the only "one and true" translation that the RR follows...]

Hypocrites. Their god and savior called them out on their bullshit two thousand years ago, but as I've said before, the so-called "Christian" Right really doesn't want much truck with that proto-hippie love-thy-neighbor forgive-thy-enemies wimpy-assed Jesus. It's all about Old Testament wrath for them.

More Moronic Teabaggery - 'This is Chilling'

One of the few advantages of having a wacked-out Rethug as a cousin is that she continually sends me crap like this:

Don't just take your hat off .........your [sic] head is next!!!!!!!!.....This is the REAL THING.........Bare [sic] Arms!!!~!~!!!@
This is chilling ...
In 1952 President Truman established one day a year as a "National Day of Prayer."
In 1988 resident [sic] Reagan designated the First Thursday in May of each year as the National Dayof [sic] Prayer.
In June 2007 (then) Presidential Candidate Barack Obama declared that the USA Was no longer a Christian nation.
This year President Obama, canceled the 21st annual National Day of Prayer ceremony at the White House under the rouse [sic] Of "not wanting to offend anyone"
On September 25, 2009 from 4 am until 7 pm, a National Day of Prayer for the Muslim religion was Held on Capitol Hill, Beside the White House. There were over 50,000 Muslims that Day in DC.
I guess it Doesn't matter if "Christians" Are offended by this event - We obviously Don't count as "anyone" Anymore.
The direction This country is headed Should strike fear in the heart of every Christian. Especially knowing that the Muslim religion believes that if Christians cannot be Converted they should be Annihilated
This is not a Rumor - Go to the website To confirm this info: (http://www.islamoncapitolhill.com/)
Pay particular attention to the very bottom of the page: "OUR TIME HAS COME" I hope that this Information will stir your spirit. We must pray for Our nation, our communities, Our families, and especially our children. They are the ones that are going to suffer the most
If we don't PRAY! May God have Mercy... IN GOD WE TRUST.
Please pass this on, Maybe someone, somehow can figure out a way to put America back on the map as it was when we were growing up, a safe place to live and by [sic] The Ten Commandments and Pledge of Allegiance.

I retained the original spelling and other grammatical errors, just as an illustration of the kind of mentality it takes to pass this shit around. Of course the original was in a huge WWIII-Headline-sized font festooned with colors, especially red for the "shocking" bits. And those inappropriate capitalisations in the middle of sentences? The original was centered and that's where it started a new line.

My cousin, it of course ought to go without saying, is also a "birther".

Anyway back to this email that is making the rounds. I hardly know where to begin...

1. First, since the malignant Islamic jihad community is mentioned so prominently, go take a look at that that website. Yeah, it does say "our time has come" but so what? It also says this:

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH....
The objective of this gathering is to invite the Muslim Communities and friends of Islam to express and illustrate the wonderful diversity of Islam. We intend to manifest Islam's majestic spiritual principals as revealed by Allah to our beloved prophet Muhammad (PEACE BE UPON HIM) of Arabia. Likewise; we intend to inspire a new generation of Muslim to work for the greater good of all people. We shall serve all people, regardless of race, religion or national origin.

Yeah, I know. "Those people" believe that it's okay to lie to infidels, cut off their heads if the won't embrace Allah, yadda yadda yadda. Here's Snopes on a similar situation.

2. Canceling the National Day of Prayer? Here's Snopes:

In 2009, President Obama decided not to host an ecumenical service in the White House in observance of the National Day of Prayer (held on the first Thursday of May) as his predecessor, President George W. Bush, had. He did not (as is commonly claimed) "cancel" the observation of the National Day of Prayer; instead, rather than holding a White House service, the president opted to issue a public proclamation and observe the occasion privately:
"Prayer is something that the president does every day," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, adding that Obama would sign a proclamation to recognize the day. "I think the president understands, in his own life and in his family's life, the role that prayer plays. And I would denote that the administrations prior to the past one did proclamations. That's the way the president will publicly observe the national prayer day. But, as I said, privately, he'll pray as he does every day."

Now here's a guy who is willing to follow the admonitions of Joshua bar Joseph (aka Jesus) who told his adherents to go into their closets and pray in private. But no, that's part of that whole wimpy-assed "love thy neighbor" Jesus thing that the fundos and their wackjob sheeple can't abide...

Note that he didn't say he didn't want to "offend" anyone...

3. Anyone who has actually been to Washington DC knows that the White House is not on Capitol Hill -- that's where the US Capitol Building is, which is why -- duh! -- they call it Capitol Hill. The White House is actually about a mile away from Capitol Hill. And the Muslims? They actually did meet at the US Capitol building and not next to the White House.

4. Obama said US was "no longer a Christian nation"? In 2007? Wrong on the quote, wrong on the date.

What he actually said, in 2009, was this: "One of the great strengths of the United States ...is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Don't believe it? Huffpo has the video -- watch it and weep.

And what this letter-writer ignores, as does every single brain-fart-residue-enhanced moron in the Religious Right/Wingnuttery/Teabaggery is the Treaty of Tripoli, in which is found the following line: "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

As I've mentioned before, there used to be such things as Civics classes in school. I can forgive (kind of) the younger generation for their ignorance of American history and government, but since the Teabaggers seem to be, by and large, old (i.e. my age or beyond) it's unconscionable that they seem to have conveniently forgotten that treaties, once agreed to by the Senate and signed by the president, are the "supreme law of the land":

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Article Six of the US Constitution].

No, I obviously am not making this up, but the Teabaggery will likely claim that I am, and when confronted with the truth will come up with something like "it says that but it doesn't mean that". That's the approach they are taking with Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.

BTW, as an aside, it is that same Article Six which contains what I think may be the most important provision in the constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis added]

While the First Amendment provisions of separation of church and state are paramount to me, the Religious Right has been active in their pursuit of their "separation of church and state are found nowhere in the constitution" crap, but they don't really have an answer to this simple declarative statement that doesn't leave a lot -- bullshit, it doesn't leave any -- wiggle room.

It's an article that's mostly been overlooked in the debate, but to me it is a totally clear statement of the separation of church and state. That's why I consider it the most important provision in the whole document.

So, bottom-line, I agree that "this is chilling", but naturally not in the way the original writer intended. I am especially bothered by the "bare arms" line. I am going to assume that the intention was not to wear a tank top to get a tan on your upper appendages. This is the kind of throwaway line that contributes to the rise in the level of potential violence -- and actual violence -- that bodes ill for the future of this country.

Okay, I know I've been really long-winded today and kind of all over the map, but whenever I get this kind of BS it puts me into an intellectual frenzy. Which is probably why she keeps sending it to me. But what the hell, it gave me a chance to vent on some topics that I think are important to know the facts about, and I hope it's given you some ammunition to fire back at that IBIL* of yours when he passes this on to you.

[IBIL = Idiot Brother-In-Law]

Using the Bible in Capital Crimes Convictions

Down in Texas a man is facing execution for murder because the jurors passed around a copy of the Xian Bible during sentencing deliberations, with the appropriate "death penalty" passages highlighted.

Okay, even putting aside the obvious Church-State issues, is this really the way we want our jurors to behave, putting a man's life on the line for something written in a 2000+ year old book of grim fairy tales?

Anyway, this got me to thinking about the verses in the Xian Bible that support, even demand ("he shall surely be put to death"), the death penalty. I recalled that there were a lot of them, but after checking out this Wikipedia entry, I was surprised not only at the number but also at some of the "crimes":

1. Religious Crimes:

• Sacrificing to gods other than God alone [Exodus 22:20; Leviticus 27:29]
• Passing children through the fire (human sacrifice) [Leviticus 20:1-5]
• worshipping Baal Peor [Numbers 25:1-9]
• False prophecy [Deuteronomy 13:1-10; Deuteronomy 17:2-7; 18:20-22]
• Necromancy, masters over ghosts and those who gain information from the dead, gastromancy and enchantment [Leviticus 20:27]
• Witchcraft [Exodus 22:18].
• Blasphemy [Leviticus 24:10-16]
• Sabbath breaking [Exodus 31:14; Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36]

2. Sexual Practices:

• Rape by a man of a betrothed woman in the countryside [Deuteronomy 22:25-27]
• Being either participant in urban sexual activity, in which a betrothed woman consensually loses her virginity to a man [Deuteronomy 22:23-24]
• Loss of virginity by a woman prior to marriage, to someone other than her husband [Deuteronomy 22:13-21]
• Adultery with a married woman [Leviticus 20:10]. Sexual activity between a married man and an unmarried woman was not forbidden.
• Marrying your wife's mother [Leviticus 20:14]
• Certain forms of incest, namely if it involves the father's wife or a daughter-in-law [Leviticus 20:11-12]. Other forms of incest receive lesser punishment; sexual activity with a sister/stepsister is given excommunication for a punishment [Leviticus 20:17]; if it involves a brother's wife or an uncle's wife it is just cursed [Leviticus 20:20-21]; and sexual activity with an aunt that is a blood relation is merely criticised [Leviticus 20:19].
• Prostitution by the daughter of a priest [Leviticus 21:9]
• Certain "activities" with a male [Leviticus 20:13; Leviticus 18:22]; the gender of the target of the command is commonly understood to be male, but not explicitly stated.
• Bestiality [Exodus 22:19]

3. Miscellaneous:

• Murder [Genesis 9:6; Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17-23; Numbers 35:9-34]
• Striking a parent [Exodus 21:15]
• Cursing a parent [Exodus 21:17; Leviticus 20:9]
• Being a "degenerate son" [Deuteronomy 21:18-21]
• Kidnapping [Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7]
• Negligent homicide, specifically by ox-goring [Exodus 21:28-32]
• Contempt of court [Deuteronomy 17:8-13]
• False witness to a capital crime [Deuteronomy 19:15-21]
  

What is particularly striking in this all-encompassing list is that there is nothing in there from the New Testament, which it seems, ought to have precedence over the Old Testament -- as Joshua bar Joseph himself implied -- but after all, that wimpy New Testament Jesus has become something of an embarrassment to the purveyors of the faith, which is why they are now embarked on a quest to silence him and all that Prince of Peace love-thy-neighbor turn-the-other-cheek crap of his.

This is just a little taste of the kind of criminal law that will rule this nation if the Religious Right Dominionists get their way and we become the theocracy they want. These people are domestic terrorists of the first order, and they are infinitely more dangerous than a few disgruntled radical Islamists hankering for those seventy virgins.

So please, consider joining an organization such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State and help us hold back the rising tide of radical Christianist fascism.

Using the Bible for a Roadmap -- to Death!

In November 2009 the state of Texas (of course) executed 32-year-old Kristian Oliver after he was convicted earlier last year of murder.

You may recall this case. This was the one where the jurors passed around a copy of the Xian Bible during sentencing deliberations, with the appropriate "death penalty" passages highlighted.

Okay, even putting aside the obvious Church-State issues, is this really the way we want our jurors to behave, putting a man's life on the line for something written in a 2000+ year old book of grim fairy tales?

Anyway, this got me to thinking about the verses in the Xian Bible that support, even demand ("he shall surely be put to death"), the death penalty. I recalled that there were a lot of them, but after checking out this Wikipedia entry, I was surprised not only at the number but also at the nature of some of the "crimes" for which one could be surely put to death:

1. Religious Crimes:

• Sacrificing to gods other than God alone [Exodus 22:20; Leviticus 27:29]
• Passing children through the fire (human sacrifice) [Leviticus 20:1-5]
• Worshipping Baal Peor [Numbers 25:1-9]
• False prophecy [Deuteronomy 13:1-10; Deuteronomy 17:2-7; 18:20-22]
• Necromancy, masters over ghosts and those who gain information from the dead, gastromancy and enchantment [Leviticus 20:27]
• Witchcraft [Exodus 22:18].
• Blasphemy [Leviticus 24:10-16]
• Sabbath breaking [Exodus 31:14; Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36]

2. Sexual Practices:

• Rape by a man of a betrothed woman in the countryside [Deuteronomy 22:25-27]
• Being either participant in urban sexual activity, in which a betrothed woman consensually loses her virginity to a man [Deuteronomy 22:23-24]
• Loss of virginity by a woman prior to marriage, to someone other than her husband [Deuteronomy 22:13-21]
• Adultery with a married woman [Leviticus 20:10]. Sexual activity between a married man and an unmarried woman was not forbidden.
• Marrying your wife's mother [Leviticus 20:14]
• Certain forms of incest, namely if it involves the father's wife or a daughter-in-law [Leviticus 20:11-12]. Other forms of incest receive lesser punishment; sexual activity with a sister/stepsister is given excommunication for a punishment [Leviticus 20:17]; if it involves a brother's wife or an uncle's wife it is just cursed [Leviticus 20:20-21]; and sexual activity with an aunt that is a blood relation is merely criticised [Leviticus 20:19].
• Prostitution by the daughter of a priest [Leviticus 21:9]
• Certain "activities" with a male [Leviticus 20:13; Leviticus 18:22]; the gender of the target of the command is commonly understood to be male, but not explicitly stated.
• Bestiality [Exodus 22:19]

3. Miscellaneous:

• Murder [Genesis 9:6; Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17-23; Numbers 35:9-34]
• Striking a parent [Exodus 21:15]
• Cursing a parent [Exodus 21:17; Leviticus 20:9]
• Being a "degenerate son" [Deuteronomy 21:18-21]
• Kidnapping [Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7]
• Negligent homicide, specifically by ox-goring [Exodus 21:28-32]
• Contempt of court [Deuteronomy 17:8-13]
• False witness to a capital crime [Deuteronomy 19:15-21]
  

What is particularly striking in this all-encompassing list is that there is nothing in there from the New Testament, which it seems, ought to have precedence over the Old Testament -- as Joshua bar Joseph himself implied -- but after all, that wimpy New Testament Jesus has become something of an embarrassment to the purveyors of the faith, which is why they are now embarked on a quest to silence him and all that Prince of Peace love-thy-neighbor turn-the-other-cheek crap of his.

This is just a little taste of the kind of criminal law that will rule this nation if the Religious Right Dominionists get their way and we become the theocracy they want. These people are domestic terrorists of the first order, and they are infinitely more dangerous than a few disgruntled radical Islamists hankering for those seventy virgins.

So please, consider joining an organization such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State and help us hold back the rising tide of radical Christianist theocratic fascism.

Spitting on Veterans -- The Persistence of a Myth

When I got back from Vietnam, no one spat on me. No one spat on any of my friends. I've asked a lot of my fellow veterans and no one spat on them, either.

In fact, no one has been able to come up with one single documented contemporary account or photograph of any Vietnam veteran being spat on by war protesters when he returned from Vietnam. And yet this myth, more than any other save those surrounding "Hanoi Jane", has grown legs sufficient enough to have now become an archetype of the whole Vietnam experience.

"Most Vietnam vets were spat on when they came back," Michael Smith stated flat-out, attempting to justifiy his actions after his arrest for spitting on Jane Fonda at a book signing. And that statement, as far as I can tell, went completely unquestioned, completely unchallenged by the MSM/SCLM.

I'm at a loss as to understand why this phenomenon is occurring. Even though, as I say, there is not one single documented case from those years, a Google search for the phrases "vietnam veterans" and "spit on" turns up 5,700 pages. And many of those pages appear to be latter-day testimonials from many of my fellow Vietnam vets, attesting to the fact they were, indeed, the recipient of unwanted saliva when they came through airports in LA, SFO, etc. And it was always airports. Not coffeeshops, not gas stations, not streetcorners. Airports. (See Jack Shafer's May 2000 column in Slate, Drooling on the Vietnam Vet for an excellent analysis.)

Sorry guys, but I am not buying it, and I'm sorry to see that you've jumped onto the victimization bandwagon. I'm sorry that you've bought into this whole mythology of the poor persecuted Vietnam veteran.

It seems to me that you don't realize what a fucking pussy this makes you look like. Are you really trying to tell everyone that you were just back in The World from a year in the jungle and when some long-haired patchouli-reeking draft-dodging hippie freak comes up to you in the airport, calls you a baby-killer and spits on you, you did absolutely nothing about it???

Bullshit. If that really happened, then you'd still to this day be so fucking humiliated by what a pussy you were that you'd never, ever talk about it.

No, you would have kicked his ass but good, and that would be your story today. About 90% of your fellow Vietnam vets would have done the same thing, and yet there are no arrest records from those days that show that a Vietnam vet and a war protester got into a fight over some spit.

So if we are going to believe that it really did happen "all the time", then we have to believe that the spitting protesters were just so fucking extremely lucky to have targeted some poor wimpy chickenshit turn-the-other-cheek Chaplain's Assistant every single time. And that you were one of them.

Jesus, dude, if you're gonna tell some bullshit war story, you might want to think through the ramifications first: Tell a story that's gonna make you look good, not one that makes you look like a chickenshit wimpass dork.

Is This a "Christian Nation"?

Grandpa McCain said so a while back -- "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation", but immediately had to backpedal a bit to say we are "a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles".

And that's a corner that you can back a lot of Fundo Xians into when they start spouting that "Christian Nation" bullshit, but they tend to stop there, dig in their heels and insist that the United States was founded on "Christian principles" (ironically, as we shall see, they tend not to give the Jews a lot of credit in these things).

Usually when the subject comes up, it's within the Fundo-Xian snake-handling bible-thumping tradition that, for example, excoriates those liberal-atheistic-commie-pinko activist judges in the Federal courts for telling Judge Roy Moore that he couldn't display on public property that giant carved rock containing the Ten Commandments, or some such similar nonsense. And note that it's almost always some kind of rabid frothing at the mouth over the "suppression" of the Ten Commandments -- other bibilical topics get pretty short shrift with these people.

Okay, so maybe they have a point: Maybe the United States was founded on the Ten Commandments. I think an examination of the appropriate part of the so-called Holy Bible is in order. So here, complete and unexpurgated, is the section of Exodus wherein can be found the Big Ten:

Exodus 20
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

And there you go. Now let's take a look at the US Constitution and see how many of these holy-writ directions from god ended up there.

Go ahead, read it. I'll still be here when you get back.

Okay, done? Now, what is your answer?

What??? None of them, you say??? But how can that be, if the Founding Fathers, the authors of the Constitution, founded this nation on Christian principles?

Okay, maybe the Fundos don't really mean the Constitution when they say that. Maybe they mean just those general laws passed to govern behavior in society. You know, state criminal codes and stuff like that.

I will concede that it appears that a handful of the commandments managed to make it into the laws: Murder, perjury, theft (and, in some jurisdictions, adultery). But those laws about murder and theft, etc., are not particularly biblical -- pretty much every civilized society in the history of the world has had similar laws, for obvious reasons: Without them a civilized society would deteriorate rapidly into anarchy or dictatorship. You don't need a supernatural revelation from The Flying Spaghetti Monster to figure that one out...

But back to the Big Ten. You really have to wonder why ALL of them didn't get into our laws. After all, if we were founded on these principles, why would only some of them make the cut? And why were the two "biggies" -- no other gods, no graven images -- kept out?

Oh, but that's the OLD Testament, you say, and the "true" Christian Principles are really found in the New Testament. (Even though we all know that's it's really the Old Testament that the vast majority of these Fundos are referring to when they talk about this -- they don't want to be bothered with the New Testament and all that "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" crap. I think maybe it sounds too much like namby-pamby wimpy-assed nancy-boy socialism to them.).

Okay, so go grab yourself one of those nifty "red letter" editions of the New Testament and look up the words of Jesus. They're printed in red so they are easy to find. Then pop on back and tell me which of THOSE principles are incorporated into the Constitution.

Never mind, don't go to the extra trouble. You won't find 'em there, either.

So, regardless of the particular religion or the spiritual/supernatural beliefs (or lack thereof) of those Founding Fathers, not a single one of them insisted that those "Christian Principles" be enshrined in the most important secular document the world has ever seen.

Jeez, this isn't rocket surgery, but you'd more easily convince Rush Limbaugh to suck Hillary Clinton's toes than you would trying to make one of those Fundo-Xian knuckledraggers understand this stuff.

[Originally published on Sunday, February 18, 2008]

Is This a "Christian Nation"?

Grandpa McCain said so a while back -- "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation", but immediately had to backpedal a bit to say we are "a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles".

And that's a corner that you can back a lot of Fundo Xians into when they start spouting that "Christian Nation" bullshit, but they tend to stop there, dig in their heels and insist that the United States was founded on "Christian principles" (ironically, as we shall see, they tend not to give the Jews a lot of credit in these things).

Usually when the subject comes up, it's within the Fundo-Xian snake-handling bible-thumping tradition that, for example, excoriates those liberal-atheistic-commie-pinko activist judges in the Federal courts for telling Judge Roy Moore that he couldn't display on public property that giant carved rock containing the Ten Commandments, or some such similar nonsense. And note that it's almost always some kind of rabid frothing at the mouth over the "suppression" of the Ten Commandments -- other bibilical topics get pretty short shrift with these people.

Okay, so maybe they have a point: Maybe the United States was founded on the Ten Commandments. I think an examination of the appropriate part of the so-called Holy Bible is in order. So here, complete and unexpurgated, is the section of Exodus wherein can be found the Big Ten:

Exodus 20
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

And there you go. Now let's take a look at the US Constitution and see how many of these holy-writ directions from god ended up there.

Go ahead, read it. I'll still be here when you get back.

Okay, done? Now, what is your answer?

What??? None of them, you say??? But how can that be, if the Founding Fathers, the authors of the Constitution, founded this nation on Christian principles?

Okay, maybe the Fundos don't really mean the Constitution when they say that. Maybe they mean just those general laws passed to govern behavior in society. You know, state criminal codes and stuff like that.

I will concede that it appears that a handful of the commandments managed to make it into the laws: Murder, perjury, theft (and, in some jurisdictions, adultery). But those laws about murder and theft, etc., are not particularly biblical -- pretty much every civilized society in the history of the world has had similar laws, for obvious reasons: Without them a civilized society would deteriorate rapidly into anarchy or dictatorship. You don't need a supernatural revelation from The Flying Spaghetti Monster to figure that one out...

But back to the Big Ten. You really have to wonder why ALL of them didn't get into our laws. After all, if we were founded on these principles, why would only some of them make the cut? And why were the two "biggies" -- no other gods, no graven images -- kept out?

Oh, but that's the OLD Testament, you say, and the "true" Christian Principles are really found in the New Testament. (Even though we all know that's it's really the Old Testament that the vast majority of these Fundos are referring to when they talk about this -- they don't want to be bothered with the New Testament and all that "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" crap. I think maybe it sounds too much like namby-pamby wimpy-assed nancy-boy socialism to them.).

Okay, so go grab yourself one of those nifty "red letter" editions of the New Testament and look up the words of Jesus. They're printed in red so they are easy to find. Then pop on back and tell me which of THOSE principles are incorporated into the Constitution.

Never mind, don't go to the extra trouble. You won't find 'em there, either.

So, regardless of the particular religion or the spiritual/supernatural beliefs (or lack thereof) of those Founding Fathers, not a single one of them insisted that those "Christian Principles" be enshrined in the most important secular document the world has ever seen.

Jeez, this isn't rocket surgery, but you'd more easily convince Rush Limbaugh to suck Hillary Clinton's toes than you would trying to make one of those Fundo-Xian knuckledraggers understand this stuff.