25 October, 2008

Crazy Christian Ladies Can Run, but They Can't Hide


Never underestimate the power of the Woozle to expose to daylight what you'd rather hide. So much for trying to delete a shameful post. This will remain long after the cached page is gone.

Janine from Farmington, who used to be Raani from Ft. Worth, tried to password-protect her blog to hide it from the prying eyes of us sodomite-loving godless sorts, but funny thing about Google cache - it allows you to view the page in all its wretched glory. The latest offering is a rather spectacularly hateful guest post by Pastor Anderson, in which he manages to misinterpret Genesis to a remarkable degree:

2. How Do the Sodomites Recruit Others to their Lifestyle?

Every Sodomite in the Bible is a rapist or molester. The Bible tells three sickening stories about Sodomites and every one of the three stories involves someone being violated against their will.

Example #1

And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. – Genesis 9:20-24

The first Sodomite mentioned in the Bible is Ham. Ham took advantage of his own father Noah while he was drunk. He didn’t just see his father’s nakedness; the Bible says that Noah knew what his younger son had done unto him. The first example of homosexuality in the Bible involves a person being violated against his will.

A normal person (i.e., not a frothing fundie with a sick as fuck mind) reads the following sequence of events: Ham sees Noah drunk and naked, ran out and blabbed to his brothers, said brothers squeamishly backed into the tent and covered Daddy up without looking, and Noah got pissed because he found out Ham had ratted him out for being a naked drunken slob.

Pastor Anderson, however, somehow pictures a rape scene. I'd hate to see his Rorschach test results.

After much more picking apart the Bible for filthy bits in order to prove his fucktarded theories, the Pastor solemnly calls for intolerance:
It is time that preachers and Baptist people take a stand against the Sodomite freaks and turn off the television that tries to shove their perversion down our throat. God help a generation of Christians that does not think that homosexuality is “that bad.” We need a revival of old-fashioned righteous indignation and hatred for sin and perverts.
The next time someone tries to ban pornography while extolling the Bible and its virtues, at least I have a list of salacious verses to point them to.

This is the face of fundamentalist Christian love. These are the sorts of people extorting companies that support No on Prop 8. These are the types who cheer on abortion clinic bombers. This is Sarah Palin's fan club.

And they want to run this country.

Expose them. Ridicule them. Drive them back to the fringe where they belong.


Woozle said...

Actually, I've been going on the assumption that the original post went away because of a terms-of-service takedown due to its being "hate speech", not because CCL herself took it down; if I thought she had hidden it herself, re-posting it would have been ethically questionable -- and under copyright law, she probably could have demanded that I take it down too. On the other hand, it would be legally fine for me to paraphrase (and possibly misrepresent) her... copyright law is messed-up.

And now, as I feared, the attempts to squelch her speech, hateful as it is, have resulted in her making her entire blog private -- the infection is covered with a bandaid without any kind of treatment first. The hate is free to spread unobserved.


There is so much crazy in this whole "God hates gays" thing... for starters, the "sin of Sodom" wasn't homosexuality, but being "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." (Ezekiel 16:49, NIV translation)

The fact that even scriptural consistency seems irrelevant to these people just underlines my argument: They are not seeking truth. Their pastors are authoritarian leaders (to whom "truth" is whatever they can convince their flock is true, and whatever helps them maintain their power), and people like crazy Christian lady are authoritarian followers (to whom "truth" is whatever their leader says).

They don't hate and fear for any real-world reason, they do it because it is necessary in order to sustain the power-structure created by the leaders. To me, this seems to be the defining difference between liberalism and conservatism: liberalism is about valuing the individual, and conservatism is about valuing institutions. The more conservative the view, the more the individual dwindles in importance compared to the institutions which s/he is a part of (and is obliged to help maintain).

When you come right down to it, it is an internally-consistent view of the world; the premises on which we differ are not premises you can argue with because the premises they use are self-protecting -- they deny the value of any argument that hasn't been sanctioned by the leaders, and the leaders know where their bread is buttered -- never mind that application of the liberal worldview general results in greater happiness for everyone, except possibly the worst of the leaders (although many of them seem pretty tortured and unhappy too, when the mask comes off). It really is like a memetic cancer; once it gets going, it takes over.

So, yeah, at some point we have to stop trying to be rational with them and just be firm. Lines must be drawn. This is the fact all the arguments against "militant atheism" try to side-step: that at some point in any given dialogue we have to switch tactics from "negotiation" to "taking a stand".

written in haste... will correct later if there are any glaring errors.

Blake Stacey said...

People have been interpreting the "Curse of Ham" incident in fucked-up ways for a good long time. The idea that Ham got it on with his drunken father goes back to the eleventh century, at least; even older is the notion that Ham's descendants were cursed, cast into perpetual slavery and had their skin turned black to mark their status.

So: racism or homophobia, take your pick.

Anonymous said...

Obsessing about Gays, much more important than worrying about children with no health/medical care, families living on the street, greed, torture .... jeeze, the list goes on.

Leave "crazy christian lady" to stew in her own juices with the rest of the rotten potatoes, safely out of sight.