Cher an Anti-Mormon Bigot

Yes, we will be hearing a lot of “I am a victim of Mormon prejudice” in the coming years. This from the church who so actively persecute gay people that members of the Mormon Church are expected to cough up money from savings, retirement, college funds, etc for anti-gay marriage  campaigns (Prop 8).

Cher is the latest victim of this nonsense. She insensitively said: “I Feel if he (Obama) doesn’t get all his DUCKS IN A ROW we’ll b forced 2 listen 2Uncaring Richy Rich! The whitest man in MAGIC UNDERWEAR in the WH (White House).”

Mormons were offended by the use of “magic underwear” because apparently the reverent term is “celestial underwear.” Let’s put it this way, how about you stop believing in under garments that are supernatural and Cher and others will stop making fun of you. This kind of belief is simply dumb.

Mormonism in general is one of the dumbest religions out there. The adherents are actually quite bright, but somehow they have been irrationally suckered into believing in a knock-off Bible sequel, poorly written in a pseudo-King James style. Their founder is a polygamist con artist and the bigotry is not so much about disallowing black members in the recent past as referring to American Indians as the evil Lamanites–as if there’s any historical or archaeologicial evidence for the Nephites and Lamanites anyways–it is a made-up story!

Sometimes stupid ideas should be called stupid and stupid religions called “stupid”! Mormonism is an offense to the intellect. Cher has nothing to apologize for  in regards to “magic underwear.” (Maybe her choice of attire possibly).

SIDENOTE: At best, maybe you could accuse Cher of bringing race into the issue, but I have to say, as a whiter than white guy myself, Romney is pretty much a rich white man stereotype.

SIDENOTE 2: I would still vote for a Mormon if I thought they were the most qualified. It would be nice to think religion isn’t a factor when people vote, but it is. And in some instances, you have to question when someone believes or stands by a belief like celestial underwear? Is that enough to disqualify them from being a good candidate? Probably not, Christians and other religions have strange rituals and beliefs too.

Don Wildmon Pushes Anti-American Buttons

I previously posted on Kirk Cameron’s release Monumental and suggested that Christians believe in collective guilt which is anti-American. Americans believe in individual responsibility and not a socialistic idea of shared guilt. So here’s Don Wildmon of the American Family Association pushing “I Pray for America” buttons and there it is again in the first paragraph of this email promotion: Collective Sins!

Sorry, I’m responsible for my own “sins” not yours and yours and yours–and certainly not for Adam and Eve’s. I also shouldn’t have someone else paying for my sins no matter how perfect they are with a blood sacrifice.

Incidently, is it Biblical to boast of your prayers? Matthew 6:3 refers to the needy and not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing. The analogy is to do your good works in private–which as far as I’m concerned includes prayer instead of politicizing it. Should you really be wearing a button announcing you pray?

BTW: I have no idea what a “Churck” is? But it scares me they come in packs.

‘Monumental,’ Kirk Cameron Clutching the American Flag

Is this wrapping yourself in the American Flag? Or desperately clutching on to the American Flag of Christian idealism? Monumental, the new feature by Kirk Cameron explores “…the story of America’s beginnings.” And part of that involves “Our Families are Worth Fighting For” if you read the promotional poster to the left. It’s pretty obvious this will be the illusion of history versus the real story which is filled with interesting forefathers who ranged from Christians to Deists to some who bordered on atheism.

For example, is Kirk going to highlight Thomas Jefferson rewriting The Bible so it didn’t offend his rational senses? Benjamin Franklin doubting the divinity of Christ? Should we even mention Thomas Paine’s blasphemies? How about recalling America’s past sins? Indian genocide and the enslavement of black people?

It’s not that America doesn’t have a Christian past, it does, but it also has a humanistic/deistic past brought about by the enlightenment and philosophy. In addition, it has a corrupt past fueled by ambition that allowed for such things as slavery, oppression of women and the squashing of worker’s rights in favor of the rich.  Christian Americanism such as Kirk’s is selective. American democracy (as it is popularly viewed since as far as I know it’s a republic) doesn’t mesh with the Bible for the following reasons:

Christians follow a king (Jesus)! America rebelled against a king! To be more exact, a British king that was said to be ordained by God (which is a fair argument when you read how a king came to rule Israel in the Old Testament. If a king is in power, God wills it. If not, he wouldn’t allow it. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the king’s decisions).

Christians believe in collective guilt and punishment, Americans do not. Adam and Eve brought punishment upon all humanity for one act of sin. Imagine the outcry of individualistic Americans if they were told they were guilty of one person’s sin? We don’t accept reparations for black slavery for this reason. We certainly do believe that the punishment should fit the crime (which is why eternal hell for limited sins is also unAmerican).

Jesus was more socialist than capitalist. I’m all for the free market myself, which aligns me with most Americans  who despise socialism with some exceptions for things like government assistance for the poor and healthcare options for the retired elderly. If you’re going to tell me that Jesus was an American capitalist, you’ve got to be kidding. He tells a rich man in Matthew, chapter 19 that it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. The Christian American defense to this scripture is that it has to do with the “love” of money, but that’s the point–our best capitalists love money, that’s how they got rich. And their greed often creates jobs (as well as corruption and layoffs when their company gets too big). Jesus continues on to say, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” This is blatantly obvious and means that those kooky Jesus hippies who lived in communes back in the sixties and seventies were closer to being Biblical than today’s middle-class Republicans. Feel free to interpret away “Jesus the socialist,” but if he were walking around today he would be shunned by Republicans.

Jesus was not pro-family. In Luke he tells us to hate our family in favor of him. The word “hate” has been interpreted away as being a translational exaggeration (another example of how the Bible contains errors in English)  but the conclusion is still the same. God comes first, family second. If your family gets in your way of loving God–get rid of your family! That is not a pro-family stance. That is a jealous god stance. And how many American Christians forsake their families for Christ anyways? Any man seen leaving his family for God (ministry or a mission trip, etc) would be looked down upon or seen as a mentally unbalanced by the American public. In addition, the Apostle Paul was not a big advocate of “family.” He felt if  you were too weak to be chaste then have a family. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of family values.

Per the DVD promo copy: Long regarded as “the land of opportunity,” there’s no question the tiny band of religious outcasts who founded this country hit upon a formula for success that went way beyond what they could have imagined. How else can you explain the fact that they established a nation that has become the best example of civil, economic and religious liberty the world has ever known?

Putting aside that these “religious outcasts” which we call Puritans brought disease to the Indians and executed witches, Kirk is right. Our forefathers hit upon a successful formula, but it wasn’t based on Christianity. It was based on a general principal that whoever God was/is, he must have endowed us with certain rights including: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Where do you find this text in the Bible? Where’s the basis for this text in the Bible (seriously, I’m asking, maybe there is one?) And where in the Bible do you find the principles of our Republic? You’d be better off reading Greek history and philosophy where there was a struggle to define how government should work. The Bible is filled with kings and more kings and prophets who condemn the kings and divine punishment. God doesn’t advocate religious tolerance–he drowns people, kills them for worshiping other gods, allows them to be enslaved because they were not faithful–this isn’t a basis for religious freedom.

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This has to do with “us” not God. With human reason, not divine authority. Everyone loves to pay lip service to god (great for votes and accepting Grammies), but ultimately it is us that have made America.

So I expect when I get my hands on Kirk Cameron’s new opus that I will not get a true sense of what it took to get America to our modern day climate in which we are one of the most tolerant, if not the most tolerant country in the world. America is a great land of opportunity, but stop making it into the religion known as Americanism. We are a country filled with Christians, we are not a Christian nation. Our past is filled with moments to cheer about and moments of shame. Christians can be proud, but I believe secular humanists have more to smile about.

‘No Peace if Christ is Not in Marriage’ Bull

After running a usual spin on a couple who was having marital problems and then turned to Jesus, Pat Robertson of The 700 Club is telling me there is no peace for the wicked when coming into a marriage–meaning nonChristians. You need Jesus to make a successful marriage.

Bull!

There are a variety of factors involved in a good long term relationship, marriage or living in sin. I’ve been with a lovely hard-headed woman for the last 16 years in my “unofficial marriage” and I’m an atheist. Every month there are compromises where we have to talk situations out as to our needs and really the key to a good marriage is communication and quite honestly, a bit of luck (and most importantly a sense of humor).

With that said, what does Pat do with a repaired marriage story? Pat uses the moment to do an altar call. Christian marriages are a testimony to nothing when marriages without Christ work. Especially interesting is the amount of divorce you see within church showing that Christ is a toss up–some marriages with Jesus work, some don’t. Interestingly enough, some statistics suggest born again Christians have a higher failure rate. More evidence that this is nonsense.

If you want to claim Christ makes a personal difference, great, it’s your spiritual experience. Stop claiming Christ has anything more to do with marriage than religious compatibility–and even that isn’t enough if the personalities are clashing.

SIDENOTE: I also see nothing wrong with multiple long term relationships, the only concern being children. Divorce is frowned upon, but in bad situations it is needed. Or sometimes people do grow apart and move on. If you have two to three long term relationships in a lifetime that does not indicate failure–it’s a part of life and there’s happiness to be found in more than one person as I don’t believe in the concept of “soulmates.”

In the past, couples were trapped by religious tradition and a marriage could get extremely abusive and unhappy all for the sake of “staying together.” Staying together for the kids is admirable when necessary but it has to be evaluated in each context. If all you’re doing is fighting in front of the kids most likely they may learn to repeat your mistakes. Better to have a divorce with the kids staying with one parent then to prolong such agony. Our society is better for the ability to divorce when needed. Maybe divorce should be used as a testimony that “Jesus got me out of this bad marriage.”