Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A jail guard in Texas has been fired from his position after saying a whole lot of quite obnoxious things to his fellow officers. And Stephen Johnson has some seriously crazy opinions:
In October, he interrupted a private conversation among jail staff and "interjected his own opinions," telling them all gays should be annihilated, sheriff's reports show. He also said that whites were the superior race and that he supported slavery, reports show.Johnson said the Bible supported his opinions, reports show.
He showed a co-worker an ancestry binder that he said proved his family once owned several slaves, reports said. Johnson refused to leave after co-workers told him they were offended by his comments, according to reports.
It gets worse:
"I believe that all dinosaurs were born of Satanic angel who has sex with woman and the animal kingdom that created ungodly reptilian creatures none of these were on the Ark," Johnson said.Johnson also said that he didn't believe in homosexuality and "that they should be put to death," according to his statement. But he said his beliefs don't lead him to treat gays differently.
I think we've found the poster child for the new Texas social studies standards.
Politics
Comments
"all dinosaurs were born of Satanic angel who has sex with woman"
He sounds like a troll.
Posted by: Ben | March 18, 2010 9:44 AM
How does one not treat people they think deserve to die differently than others?
Posted by: penn | March 18, 2010 9:54 AM
A racist, gay hating, white supremacist prison guard in Texas? Shocking. As far as I'm concerned the real story here is the reactions of his coworkers. That his fellow guards were appalled and his superiors took action is heartening. Go Texas!
@Ben
Dinosaurs as the spawn of a human woman (Lilith) and a fallen angel is one I’ve heard many times and with countless variations. It’s very popular in some fundamentalist circles, particularly in the mid-west.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 18, 2010 10:03 AM
"It’s very popular in some fundamentalist circles, particularly in the mid-west."
Nor would I be surprised to find it gaining popularity in certain Japanese cartoons.
Posted by: Captain Mike | March 18, 2010 10:12 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | March 18, 2010 10:14 AM
I don’t watch much mainstream TV, but I have a fondness for the show My Name is Earl. in one episode, Earl’s brother Randy becomes a prison guard. As he explains it, “I scored a 57 on the entrance exam and that was the highest score they have had in three months.”
Posted by: Chilidog | March 18, 2010 10:26 AM
So in fact, he is wrong about everything.
Posted by: heddle | March 18, 2010 10:27 AM
What Abby Normal said, and more specifically for your daily dose of old testament fun. Genesis 6:1-4
and Numbers 13:33
The etymology of the Hebrew word used means "Fallen Ones." Some scholars translate it "giants." Most agree that it's either metaphorical or simply anecdotal legends. (not far off from Greek legends of giants in ages past really). But of course a "literal" interpretation doesn't exactly allow for this.
Posted by: Ben P | March 18, 2010 10:33 AM
Slavery in the Bible
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | March 18, 2010 10:43 AM
Win.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 18, 2010 10:51 AM
Slavery in the bible
Posted by: heddle | March 18, 2010 10:52 AM
Abby Normal @ 3:
Perhaps they were primarily angry he was using the wrong venue to make such pronouncements.
I used to get a lot of vile viral conservative emails where I'd answer the whole distribution list with a rebuttal. The most frequent response I encountered wasn't directed back at me but instead was anger by the person who forwarded the email to the person who forwarded it to me. They had meant for their promotion of certain arguments to be considered by 'fellow travelers' only.
I realize this guy's beyond even the mainstream Christianist bend, but I wonder if his associates' frustration is that it makes their absurd views also held up to scrutiny where they'd prefer such positions not be exposed in "mixed company" unless its couched in more politically correct speech.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 18, 2010 10:52 AM
You mean the Fraternal Order hasn't embraced this embattered soul against unjust firing? I mean, this man's a hero who has unselfishly spent his career helping his fellow citizens.
Posted by: Ron | March 18, 2010 10:56 AM
I'm all in favor of being honest about what our ancestors did; but this guy seems like a sad loser trying to make his ancestors' oppression of others something to be proud of -- because he had nothing creditable of his own to brag about.
I have slave-owners in my family tree too, but I'm not pretending it was a good thing or was justified by any religion worth studying.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 18, 2010 11:08 AM
"Johnson said the Bible supported his opinions, reports show"
That's what makes the bible so handy for so many: it's been written and rewritten so many times, in ways open to so many interpretations, that it can be used to support any comment or position.
Posted by: dean | March 18, 2010 11:11 AM
Okay, I had no problem following Herod's link about slavery in the Bible; but heddle's link on the same subject was blocked by my employers' nanny-ware. Which makes me wonder what sort of freaky kinkiness our Calvinist physics professor is into these days...
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 18, 2010 11:13 AM
I have to say that I am actually shocked by the outright bigotry here. First by this prison guard who is truly a racist, fanatic asshole. But secondly, and more importantly, by the bigotry of the author and the people posting comments here.
I have lived in Texas my entire adult life and yes, we do have our share of whackjobs. Just like every place else. But, we also have an enormous amount of great people. Jim Hightower, Ann Richards, Kinky Friedman spring immediately to mind.
So, yeah, thanks a lot for stereotyping all of us and pre-judging us all based on your own poorly informed and bigoted ideas of what Texans are like.
Oh, and Abby Normal, Until you've drank beer and had barbecue with some of the gaurds up in Huntsville, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 11:13 AM
I'm going to have to disagree with your ranking. There is no way whacky views about dinosaurs qualify as "it gets worse" when compared to the earlier quoted passage about supporting slavery and anhilating gays.
Posted by: Matty | March 18, 2010 11:24 AM
Eric-
I suggest recalibrating your sarcasm meter. Of course I know that there are many brilliant and wonderful people in Texas. I count many of them among my friends and even more of them among my readers (and some are both). But they are well aware of the element at whom this post is aimed as well and and know that I am not, in fact, stereotyping everyone in Texas. I am, however, criticizing those who actually fit that stereotype -- and there are far too many of those folks around. I'm just doing so with some rather obvious sarcasm and mockery.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 18, 2010 11:39 AM
"I have to say that I am actually shocked by the outright bigotry here. First by this prison guard who is truly a racist, fanatic asshole. But secondly, and more importantly, by the bigotry of the author and the people posting com[...]"
tl;dr. Concern troll is concerned. Thanks for playing.
Posted by: Coryat | March 18, 2010 11:41 AM
"The Next Governor of Texas?"
Sounds more like AG material to me ...
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | March 18, 2010 12:01 PM
-Ed,
I appreciate you taking the time to reply to me and I do understand that a lot in your post is tounge in cheek. I really don't have a problem with that and I appreciate you shining a light on the Woo (with a capital W) here in Texas.
Keep in mind that it is easy living abroad (I.E. outside of Texas) and looking in. How do you think those of us here in the Lone Star state feel? It isn't your kids that will have to read the text books that these idiots are putting together. It isn't your governor that said "Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion".
I agree that all of this if more than fair game for commentary and ridicule. But, sometimes, I just feel like I am hemmed at both ends. I have to put up with these right wing and religious wacko's and then I have to put up with foreigners (I.E. non-Texans) automatically thinking I am a dumb, inbred, racist, homophobic redneck just because I say "y'all" and "fixing to".
Anyway, next time you're in Houston let me know and I will buy you a beer.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 12:01 PM
Well this is obviously foolish, Lilith gave rise to all werewolves, duh!
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 18, 2010 12:12 PM
#5 -> #7
#9 -> #11
heddle, being incredibly original as always.
And denying Jesus again by saying that his book doesn't really say what it clearly says.
Posted by: Ivan | March 18, 2010 12:24 PM
This may, in fact, be part of the problem.
Posted by: Tacroy | March 18, 2010 12:27 PM
As quite a few commentators have pointed out, the Texas BOE is everyone's problem for precisely that reason - the Texas schoolbook market has a huge influence on the entire industry.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | March 18, 2010 12:28 PM
-Tacroy
There are a lot of great things about living in Texas. Oneof them are being able to say "yall" and "fixin to" with no sense of irony. another is being able to mosey places. The almost completely un-deserved sense of superiority is really a mixed bag.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 12:30 PM
I thought Eric was being jokey in talking about Texas as if it's a separate country. Made me smile, anyway.
Signed,
Unoffended in Dallas
Posted by: Gretchen | March 18, 2010 12:34 PM
Actually, this is a problem I can safely ignore, at least regarding my children's education. How aboot that, eh?
For various other reasons, though, it would still be dangerous for me to ignore it.
Posted by: Captain Mike | March 18, 2010 12:42 PM
So, yeah, thanks a lot for stereotyping all of us and pre-judging us all based on your own poorly informed and bigoted ideas of what Texans are like.
No problem. It's the least we could do in return for all those wonderful stereotypes coming from your state about liberals, New Yorkers, Northerners, city-slickers, Californians, and Europeans.
We're still trying to repay those country-music folks in kind for their hard work cranking out stereotypes of Muslims (and Americans who don't hate them). That may take awhile...
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 18, 2010 12:51 PM
@Eric: I don't know any guards in Huntsville, but my friends who work in corrections here in Colorado would be the first to admit that as a profession they aren't really hired for their intelligence. Or their political correctness, for that matter.
I am sympathetic about you feeling stereotyped. But when so many of your "countrymen" are so enthusiastic about embracing the stereotype...
Posted by: WScott | March 18, 2010 12:52 PM
But, we also have an enormous amount of great people. Jim Hightower, Ann Richards, Kinky Friedman spring immediately to mind.
Remind me again how those wonderful bighearted Texans ended Ann Richards' political career?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 18, 2010 12:54 PM
-WScott
The world needs ditch diggers too. I know guards that are right and royal pricks and some that are good men and women. Just because someone is a guard doesn't say much about them aside from that they aren't exactly professionally sucessful.
-WScott & Raging Bee Two wrongs don't make right. But, three lefts do.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 12:59 PM
-Bee,
Yes, I suppose us Texans are horrible, evil bastards for electing George Bush to high political office.
But then, you may want to save some of that scorn for yourself as y'all elected him president.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 1:03 PM
No scorn necessary here -- I saw how stupid he was, and how deranged his supporters were, long before he even got nominated; so I didn't vote for him. And he didn't carry New York or California either.
Oh, and what about that campaign to rewrite Thomas Jefferson out of America's history? What state is that coming out of again?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 18, 2010 1:12 PM
David Heddle @ 11 links to a post that was the last dialogue he and I had on a debate with specific parameters. I preemptively conceded at the start of our lengthy exchange* for the sake of debate that the Bible was the inerrant word of God and that the New Covenant supplanted God's promotion or enablement of slavery in the Old Testament. I believe neither, but did so in order that David and I used a common set of assertions because I believed that David's assertions force one to concede that an inerrant reading of the Bible has it describing a god who promotes and enables slavery, even post-New Covenant.
Based on the results of that exchange I don't think a person could conclude that God doesn't condone slavery, especially absolutely as David does here at 11. In fact, see my comment post #1 in David's link which clearly shows that God continued to promote or enable slavery even after the New Covenant as encountered in Titus**. My only assumption, which is biblically based, is that God had the ability the convey his thoughts and demands to humans via the New Testament. The result is one clear passage enabling the institution of slavery coupled to zero passages post-New Covenant in the Bible where God clearly explicitly makes known his opposition to slavery. I think the explicit standard is a fair one given God's previous explicit promotion of slavery and the Titus passage. One position I can take with certainty is that God completely failed to provide a clear refutation on his previous pro-slavery position.
David - I'm disappointed your taking such an absolutist position based on what is at best a very tenuous position that I would argue is more reasonably a refutation of your position given God's powers, ability to communicate, and the inerrant New Testament text (your premises). I thought better of you and would argue you're showing the same type of denial we find in many conservative Christians which I thought you did not share. I believe you would show far more character if you wanted to continue believing God doesn't promote or enable slavery by asserting you had faith that the Bible was inerrant and that God opposed human slavery while simultaneously conceding that one can not empirically take that position and that what evidence we do have argues the opposite.
*Which is mostly published in the comment section(s) of this forum and other blog posts at David's site.
**RSV Version of Titus 2:9 - 10:
I think verse 11 is also important since it removes the excuse in at least some if not most cases that previous generations who promoted slavery make the argument that slaves aren't fully human (though we know many slaves in Paul's times were considered human). The 'non-human' argument was made about African-Americans even by federal judges into the 1930s in their written opinions. But here God implies in general that slaves are humans. Certainly one can argue around that to some degree, but not completely. This by the way is not part of David's argument, I merely bring it up as a tidbit that destroys really defective arguments by both sides being made during the antebellum era when either side employed the Bible as leverage for their argument.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 18, 2010 1:16 PM
-Bee,
Clearly you are an American and Americans put George Bush into office so you MUST be equally responsible for him as I am for putting him in the governors office back in 96.
Guilt by association cuts both ways there bee.
Also, I think Ed already stated that he thinks the Cons have overplayed their hand. Something I am both hopeful of and happy about. I really wish you would stop trying to paint me and my state with your bigoted brush. Although I do agree that we could all do without your scorn, thanks.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 1:20 PM
I really wish you would stop trying to paint me and my state with your bigoted brush.
It's "bigoted" to point out that Texans have given at least as good as they've got in the stereotype department? It's "bigoted" to point out that large numbers of Texans -- in representative government positions -- do indeed seem intent on embracing and reinforcing such stereotypes? Are you disputing the facts as we've observed them?
Although I do agree that we could all do without your scorn, thanks.
If Texans REALLY want to do without all this scorn, they can start by voting out the buffoons who so dilligently earn it on their behalf.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 18, 2010 1:30 PM
@Eric Houg # 17
I think you may have misunderstood the intent of my post. Actually I was trying to make the same point you were, that this guy was the exception and that the guards and administrators reacted well. I was in fact highlighting that the stereotype doesn't seem to reflect reality here (with that one glaring exception), playing it up to knock it down.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 18, 2010 1:30 PM
-Abby
If I misconstrued your intent, you have my sincerest apology.
-Bee
Since you don't seem to see either the logical flaw or the bigotry in your arguments I will continue to hold you, as an American, responsible for the poor performance of the Bush administration. I mean WHY didn't you get rid of President Bush back in 2004? For that matter, why didn't you and your countrymen avoid putting him in Office in 2000? I suggest you didn't work diligently enough to keep that buffoon out of office.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 1:43 PM
Michael Heath,
It is not clearly as you say, unless you accept as unarguable the imposition you impose upon god: that he, god, would naturally spell-out everything, in his bible, unambiguously-- to a degree that meets to your satisfaction. If you assume that, then there are indeed many complaints you can wage against god and the bible, for example: it would have been nice if he made the appropriateness of infant baptism clear one way or another. We find mention of some who "believed and was baptized along with their entire family" but what is missing is a follow-on: "except the babies, of course" or "including the babies, of course," either of which would have settled the question which remains unsettled. But the fact that you say, in effect, if you were god you would make all things crystal clear in your holy book is irrelevant. God can make clear what it pleases him to make clear.
(Not to mention that the in a nice circular argument the bible predicts it will not be sensible to unbelievers.)
To me it is quite clear:
1) Unambiguously, the greatest executive order that God gives to us, in the New Testament, regarding how we are to treat one another, the order which Jesus tells us any other command would be subservient to, is to love our neighbor as ourselves. Anything contrary to that cannot be aligned with NT law, period. And slavery is, in my view, and I would think any rational person's view, trivially in opposition to loving your neighbor as yourself. Compared to extracting the doctrine of the Trinity or padeobaptism—this is kid’s stuff.
2) Other mentions of slavery in the NT are in the category of how you should behave if you are a slave, and how you should behave if you own slaves. They are not calls to rebel—because the gospel is not a social gospel but a redemptive gospel. And they are not explicit calls to free slaves, because the NT does not demand that righteous deeds be performed because you have been told to, but because you think they are the right thing to do.
Posted by: heddle | March 18, 2010 1:48 PM
Since you don't seem to see either the logical flaw or the bigotry in your arguments...
I asked you to point either of those out to me, and you still haven't done so. WScott and I pointed out that huge number of Texans -- including duly elected officials -- were actively reinforcing all those negative stereotypes you're complaining about. Are these statements false?
I have also pointed out that Texans have done their own share of unfair and ignorant stereotyping. You seem to take umbrage at this; are you disputing the facts here too?
...I will continue to hold you, as an American, responsible for the poor performance of the Bush administration...
The diffference between us here, is that unlike you, I am honestly acknowledging the source of this anti-American stereotype, and not getting defensive and whining about "bigotry" when foreigners stereotype America based on Bush Jr. We're not all a nation of ignorant self-important phony cowboys, but I, for one, understand why people see us that way, and it's not all their fault; and I acknowledge that the first step in fighting a negative stereotype is admitting where it comes from.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 18, 2010 1:55 PM
@Eric -- You can't hold Bee accountable for Bush being "elected", as:
a) Bush WASN'T elected in 2000, he was chosen by the Supreme Court.
b) Bee likely voted for the OTHER candidate, and therefore had no hand in Bush's second term in office.
Posted by: WMDKitty | March 18, 2010 2:00 PM
I think that's kind of the point, WMDKitty. It's as stupid to talk about Texans as if they're all the same person (by portraying them as all having the same attitudes and being responsible for the same things) as it is to do that about Americans.
If you want to slam Texas, by all means do so-- sarcastically, or with sympathy for those of us who absolutely do not share in whatever you're slamming. I'll probably join you. But if you honestly think there's something wrong with me just for living here, I'll think you're a jerk.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 18, 2010 2:05 PM
(Not to mention that the in a nice circular argument the bible predicts it will not be sensible to unbelievers.)
There's nothing "circular" about that. The editors took one look at that mishmash and said "Good luck explaining THIS to the educated heathens!"
Seriously, heddle, thanks for making the argument I didn't have time to formulate (but have made here in the past). Short answer: the Bible does nto CONDONE slavery, it merely acknowledges that it existed, pretty much everywhere, at time of publication, and might not be universally abolished in one lifetime. True, Jesus didn't tell everyone to abolish slavery; but there are a LOT of things we all recognize as good (democracy, health insurance, antibiotics, clean energy, the Internet, Guiness Stout, etc.) that Jesus also didn't explicitly tell us to do.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 18, 2010 2:08 PM
@41
How are you supposed to behave if you own slaves? Does it involve manumission?
Posted by: snurp | March 18, 2010 2:11 PM
-Bee,
Jeez, now you're stereotyping foreigners. I was in France last March and everyone knew I was from Texas. the only two things they knew about Texas were cowboys and George Bush. But, none of them treated me any different just because I was from Texas and a lot of them were actually Bush supporters.
Sorry, that you can't see your own bigotry. Go back and replace every Texan in your last post with Ni**er. And see how it reads. Just because there is a seed of justification in a stereotype doesn't make it any more acceptable or fair.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 2:16 PM
-WMDKitty
1) It was 10 years ago, LET IT GO!
2) I didn't vote for George Bush for Governor of for President nor did I vote for any of the wackaloons on the state textbook comitee and yet the whining bee wants to hold me responsible for their actions.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 2:19 PM
But shouldn't an omnipotent God clearly explain that these things are good (or bad) and promote them (or discourage them)?
The whole New Testament/Old Testament argument is rather silly as well. Unless, of course, your God is a paranoid schizophrenic with alzheimer's.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 18, 2010 2:24 PM
I usually just roll my eyes when someone puts out heddle bait in the comments, but I had to laugh when I saw David's preemptive laying out of the anti-heddle bait this time around.
Posted by: tacitus | March 18, 2010 2:29 PM
Eric,
I think the point 'bee is making, and you are missing, is that while you are complaining and decrying your inclusion into the "Texan stereotype," 'Bee isn't complaining or decrying being included in the "dumb American" stereotype. He's not saying that you specifically are a dumb Texan, or that you espouse their beliefs, simply that it behooves you to combat their idiocy all the more. At the same time (I believe) he accepts the fact that he needs to combat "dumb American"-ism wherever and whenever he sees it.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 18, 2010 2:31 PM
Just because there is a seed of justification in a stereotype doesn't make it any more acceptable or fair.
No, but it DOES mean that the group in question needs to acknowledge the source of the stereotype, instead of just whining and blaming others for not seeing them the way they want to be seen.
Seriously, do you really think I'm an anti-American bigot, merely because I acknowledge that many Americans have made our country look less stellar than I want us to look?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 18, 2010 2:32 PM
And while we're on the subject of gubernatorial candidates, Georgia has not one, but two candidates running who have been accused of seriously inappropriate behavior with female students.
Surely it can't *that* difficult to find decent candidates for high office without this type of baggage these days, can it?
Posted by: tacitus | March 18, 2010 2:34 PM
Eric Houg,
The Tu Quoque in #40 does not suit you well. I'm a native and current Nevădan and have been getting all kinds of shit for it as long as I can remember. I'm not complaining about it, because it really says more about the other person than it does me. Man up, or you really will start to look like a pussy, which will make other commenters want to be dicks even more. And implying that you're not an American isn't helping matters, either. Texas hasn't been its own country for over 160 years, and even then it couldn't properly defend itself.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | March 18, 2010 2:34 PM
David @ 41 - I'd appreciate that you not talk past my core point, that's at least twice now.
If God were a person I think we'd both agree it is God who has the obligation to make his revised will clear rather than the audience attempting to figure it out, especially given arguably contra passages that come post-New Covenant. That's especially so since God was previously quite clear in his promotion and enablement of slavery in the OT, and does little to nothing to dissuade of us that in the NT given that when He brings up the subject in the NT, he does nothing to clarify His position is now different than it was. In Titus for example God could have clearly added beyond His orders regarding how slaves should behave that their masters if they were Christian should free them, but He does not. In fact given that He continues in Titus to infer His not objecting to slavery, the reasonable conclusion is that God is comfortable with slavery.
An analogy I used previously is large institutions and how the competent ones always make revised policy positions very clear, especially in regards to anticipating misunderstandings and preemptively communicating through those. I've both been through and led radical transformations and besides repeatedly communicating the changes well after implementation, the successful transformations also did a FAQ on the obvious questions with the new perspective. You don't hold God to even this lowly human standard, but instead a far lower one that enabled slavery to exist and actually get far worse in some periods for 1800+ years.
I'm not saying you don't have an argument, I understand it perfectly. I am saying your argument is both very weak and far weaker than mine in this case and is certainly not worthy of making absolute claims like you did @ 11. I don't think your argument is weak because of some failure on your part, I think you're actually presenting the best possible argument out there. I'm instead arguing the evidence and the most rational positions are weighted in my favor, and not through any talent on my part, but instead based merely on evidence and reason we both have at our disposal and where we are both in agreement on the premises (for the sake of our dialogue).
I can't imagine us disagreeing on a different one-sided issue if it weren't tied around God and defending an inerrant Bible given the collective weight of evidence you and I have at our disposal. I don't even find this a close call, though I agree my position does not falsify your position, though I do think it makes it look at best untenable.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 18, 2010 2:41 PM
-Bee,
At this point, you have officially passed into talking out your ass syndrome. Texans are not a monolithic group. We do not ride horses to work and walk around with six shooters strapped to their hips. We also exhibit the full range of political and religious beliefs not just Christian, Republican and If you come to my city you can hear nearly every language spoken on the planet and find representatives of every major religion, most of the minor ones as well as skeptics and Atheists.
I bear exactly the same responsibility for some wackaloon in Lubbock as YOU do. And I don’t need to explain or apologize for anything that these idiots do unless I agree with or support them. I also don’t need to explain or apologize for anything Mr. Bush did or for anything any of the other loonies on the national stage do. And, neither do you.
Yep, there are some real nutbags in Texas. Trust me friend you REALLY have no idea. The guy in this article is pretty tame compared to some of the shit I have seen. But, THEY AIN’T ME. I am not on their side. I am embarrassed by them the same as you. All I am saying is that I would appreciate it if y’all stopped pretending that all of this is something more inherent in Texas than anywhere else.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 2:52 PM
blogger1: Well, I didn't vote for bush.
blogger2: You don't vote for bush!.
blogger1: Well, 'ow did he become president then?
blogger2: The Supreme Court,
[angels sing]
bodies clad in the purest flat black robes, held aloft hanging chads from the bosom of the waters of Florida signifying by Divine Providence that he, bush, was to carry out the office of President.
[singing stops]
That is why he was your President!
blogger3: Listen -- strange people in the Supreme Court examining chads is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical chad-counting ceremony.
blogger2: Be quiet!
blogger3: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some judicial tart dangled a chad at you!
blogger2: Shut up!
blogger3: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just because some moistened bint had lobbed a uncounted absentee ballot at me they'd put me away!
blogger2: Shut up! Will you shut up!
blogger3: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
Posted by: rob | March 18, 2010 2:55 PM
-Dogmeat
"it behooves you to combat their idiocy"
It behooves EVERYONE to combat their idiocy.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 2:56 PM
-Shawn
That would be by the way of being a joke.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 2:58 PM
Eric Houg,
Thanks for the clarification. As you can see, I'm pretty stupid, too. But people shouldn't hold that against other Nevădans.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | March 18, 2010 3:04 PM
I never hold anything agaisnt Nevadans. Unless they're cute, then I try to hold myself against them :]
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 3:07 PM
Texans are not a monolithic group.
I never said you were.
We do not ride horses to work and walk around with six shooters strapped to their hips.
I never said you did.
We also exhibit the full range of political and religious beliefs not just Christian, Republican and If you come to my city you can hear nearly every language spoken on the planet and find representatives of every major religion, most of the minor ones as well as skeptics and Atheists.
Where did I ever say otherwise?
I bear exactly the same responsibility for some wackaloon in Lubbock as YOU do. And I don’t need to explain or apologize for anything that these idiots do...
I'm not asking you to explain or apologize for them. I'm asking you to stop crying about "bigotry" when Stupid Texan Tricks make national news (or, worse yet, have global impact) and people's picture of Texas is understandably colored by what they see coming out of Texas.
I'm also asking you to stop pretending that Texans are only the victims, never the perpetrators, of unfair negative stereotypes. I know there's plenty of Texans who are NOT loudly stuck-up about their state, but they've been outshouted by those who are, for quite some time, and I'm tired of hearing people putting down New Yorkers and other city-dwellers and saying "I'm from Texas" like that automatically makes whatever they say next right and witty (as Bush Jr. did in the 2000 debates).
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 18, 2010 3:30 PM
-Bee
Have a lovely weekend.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 3:36 PM
Can someone call a doctor for Mr. Houg? It appears that something crawled up his posterior and may or may not have perished.
Posted by: senor | March 18, 2010 3:36 PM
dogmeat said:
Willingness to be included in one stupid stereotype is not permission to apply another stupid stereotype to others.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 18, 2010 3:41 PM
Yes, and one way to combat their idiocy is to mock it mercilessly which is what we are doing and you are arguing against.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 18, 2010 3:42 PM
To be fair to Georgia, these aren't the only two candidates--the article describes them as long-shot candidates, each polling around 2% in a primary. And where are the secessionists going to find a candidate without baggage?
Posted by: Vicki | March 18, 2010 3:47 PM
Except, as 'bee points out above in 62, he really wasn't doing that.
It bothers me when non-US citizens make sweeping stereotypical statements about us, but I'm far more annoyed by the idiots who merit those observations than I am at the outsiders who shake their head in amazement and disgust. Far too long over the last decade at least, truly idiotic people have been in power in our country and have done some truly horrible things. I can't blame outsiders who see this and don't wonder if a majority of Americans aren't this stupid, selfish, callous, bigoted, etc., because sometimes I truly wonder. The same can be said, (despite their collective egos) on a smaller scale, for Texas.
If you don't like being lumped in with the idiots, don't whine about it, do something to limit the power of the idiots and their ability to impact the quality of your life.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 18, 2010 3:49 PM
-Dogmeat
By all means feel free to mock away. I would appreciate it especially. It is one of the few antidotes for living in the Bible belt.
That certainly isn't want I was saying and if that is what you got then my applologies. The wackaloons on the BoE here are far more than worthy of ridicule, mockery and scorn.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 3:54 PM
-senor
You keep away from my ass! I heard about you Yankees, fuckin perv.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 3:56 PM
I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that the "Don't mess with Texas!" attitude is macho bluster. And I don't think anyone can deny that a lot of whacky conservative politics brew in Texas. However, I must come to the defense of many of my Texan friends who do not fall into convenient stereotypes. Texas is not a state of mind, it's a political subdivision that some people attach more significance to than is logically merited. It's also an incredibly diverse political subdivision that just might shift blue in the coming years. El Paso has little to nothing in common with Plano in terms of culture, politics, and demographics; Austin couldn't be more different from Lubbock. What's more, one could say the exact same thing about the state that's frequently touted (incorrectly, in my view) as the most liberal--California. Just compare the Bay Area to Orange County or Bakersfield.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 18, 2010 4:02 PM
Dogmeat,
Basically, the thread has gone like this:
Eric: "Stop saying bigoted things about Texans!"
Ed: "I was being sarcastic. I know there are plenty of great Texans, but we should criticize those who aren't great."
Eric: "Okay, thanks. I agree."
Raging Bee: "But you guys do it too! And you elected George Bush, and you did all of these other things!"
Eric: "Umm, actually I didn't do any of that."
Raging Bee: "I don't care! I don't mind being called a dumb American, so you shouldn't mind being called a heartless idiotic Texan!"
Do you see the difference in approaches here?
How about not lumping non-idiots in with idiots and doing something to limit the power of the idiots? Is it really so taxing to do both?
Posted by: Gretchen | March 18, 2010 4:04 PM
Sigh, in general when you're on a blog that tends to agree with more liberal/progressive/just not goddamned stupid views, it's best to assume people aren't outright prejudiced against you for your hometown/religion/favorite bball team. Eric, I totally get why you're offended, but save it for someone who isn't just poking fun at the foibles of different American people. If a dumbass liberal politician tried to force all public schools to serve tofu instead of meat, you would be free to openly mock us arugula-eating fancy-pants-wearing northerners. I wouldn't take offense, although my extended pinky might waver a little as I sipped my wine. Just chill out, have a laugh at the unfortunate gobs you share a state with, and the next time someone up here does something stupid, just mock The Bee right back. Cheers!
Oh, and while I think Mr. Heath and Dr. Heddle are very interesting folks, I find the whole argument hilarious. "Your imaginary friend believes in slavery!" "No he doesn't, this book written by bronze age goat herders about my imaginary friend says so!" "I read that book and it so does say that this particular imaginary creature likes slavery!" I ended up not bothering with the middle-man of religion and just figured out that slavery was bad on my own. Because it's FUCKING OBVIOUS. Seriously God, if you want me to even entertain the notion that you're all-powerful, try getting me to believe you could write down a moral rule without it taking thousands of years to decipher.
Posted by: Rob Monkey | March 18, 2010 4:04 PM
-Sadie,
Thanks for the support. Personally, I find California to be WAYYY more right wing and wackaloon than Texas. But then, I spend most of my time in Bakersfield and the Central Valley.
BTW, "Don't Mess with Texas" is the states’ anti-liter campaign, and I will thank you not to call it "Macho Bluster". Ladybird Johnson would be roll over in her grave if folks started littering amongst all her lovely bluebonnets.
Posted by: Eric Houg | March 18, 2010 4:11 PM
I didn't know that, and I stand corrected.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 18, 2010 4:19 PM
Rob Monkey,
I'm not sure Bee knows how to just "poke fun." Pretty sure he's deadly serious. And it would be a sad day if this blog became a den of groupthink where it's okay to look down on people just because they're Texan, or Southern, or conservative, or religious.
Eric,
It may have started out that way, but do you honestly think people would slap bumper stickers on their back of their pickups in mass numbers because of an anti-litter campaign? Let's not deny it-- "Don't Mess With Texas" is definitely an attitude for a lot of people.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 18, 2010 4:23 PM
Michael Heath,
I think I understand Heddle's argument, and it does seem weak. However, your argument, as far as I can understand it, seems so very much weaker that I wonder if I am understanding you at all. Here is what it sounds like to me:
1. If there were a God (which there is not), there is absolutely no doubt that that God would choose to communicate with humans about the expected details of their behavior, and furthermore absolutely no doubt that that God would use certain specific communication techniques/principles.
2. I just happen to know what those techniques/principles are.
3. Those techniques/principles are the same as those used by modern successful business people.
If this really is the form of your argument
---------
1. If there were elves (which there aren't), there is absolutely no doubt that they would make specific shoes that humans are expected to wear, and that they would use certain specific techniques/principles for doing so.
2. I just happen to know what those techniques/principles are.
3. The techniques/principles are the same as those used by Reebok.
--------
then it seems hard to take seriously.
Posted by: JuliaL | March 18, 2010 4:26 PM
I'm pretty sure that 'Bee started out poking fun but then he and Eric became more and more annoyed with one another.
I really don't think it's that big of a deal, sure, 'bee is prickly at times, I've gotten stung once or twice, but that also makes for a lively debate when it could devolve into a bunch of head bobbing.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 18, 2010 4:27 PM
Michael Heath,
I must then be missing your core point, because every time I read I get the same thing out: that the cornerstone of your argument is that surely god would be unambiguous. Aren't you making it again--
Perhaps, but he is not a person. He is not obligated to make anything appear to be clear to you. In fact Jesus teaches that he speaks in parables, on purpose, to make things unclear to unbelievers! (Matt. 13:11-15.) There you have the son of god telling you not only that he feels no obligation to make things clear--and in fact is quite happy to go the extra mile to obfuscate.
That is assuming that in most cases slave owners and their supporters sincerely believed that the bible justified slavery--that they didn't just attempt to rationalize their evil by misusing an ideology (why, that would be unprecedented!). I think you give them way too much credit. Of course it is advantageous for your argument to assume that they didn't just pull out some scripture (and ignore Jesus' commandment) for financial gain, political expediency, regional (and hence congregational) economic stability, and plain old racism. (Again, that would be unprecedented!) Your position more or less demands they they studied the bible and were genuinely convicted about the bible's pro-slavery stand--and that if they had seen it clearly, if God had only been more obvious, they would have willingly faced what they perceived as economic ruin and freed their slaves. Again, you give them too much credit.
Posted by: heddle | March 18, 2010 4:40 PM
Gretchen | March 18, 2010 2:05 PM:
You live in Texas?
That's almost as crazy as me living in Utah.
Posted by: llewelly | March 18, 2010 4:42 PM
heddle | March 18, 2010 4:40 PM:
Thank you, heddle. You have just made my day.
Posted by: llewelly | March 18, 2010 4:49 PM
There you have the son of god telling you not only that he feels no obligation to make things clear--and in fact is quite happy to go the extra mile to obfuscate.
I agree with heddle, and very shortly after, he becomes bat-shit-ridiculous. I vaguely remember this sort of thing happening before. I know correlation doesn't imply causation, but it's still kinda creepy. Maybe his God is enabling it in his inimitable Calvinistic determinist way...
Posted by: Raging bee | March 18, 2010 5:18 PM
RB,
just out of curiosity--do you disagree in my interpretation of that passage:
or, is your point, that in spite of what is says, you are sure that Jesus would not intentionally obfuscate via parables?
Posted by: heddle | March 18, 2010 5:30 PM
I see where you're going, but infant baptism doesn't seem like a close enough analogy to slavery, at least as the Bible treats them. I agree that the passages on how to behave as a Christian is you are a slave do not imply that slavery is being condoned; the passages on how to behave as a slaveowner seem inconsistent and do imply to me that there isn't anything necessarily wrong with it. It sure is a glaring omission.
I think what would strengthen your argument would be another example of the Bible speaking about another sin in a similar way, which may well exist for all I know. If we assume that the Bible teaches that slavery is clearly, obviously wrong then recommendations on the proper behavior while committing this wrong seem bizarre. Are there other examples recommending how to behave while unrepentantly sinning for any other sins?
Posted by: Spartan | March 18, 2010 5:45 PM
JuliaL - your description of my argument @ 77 does not portray my argument, it's not even a very good strawman of my argument. Perhaps you'd have to be there at the beginning of our dialogue/debate or at least understand all the passages in the Bible related to slavery, Old v. New Covenant arguments - especially in terms of specificity and in relation to seemingly contra passages. Also and in David's defense, one would also need to understand the general admonitions of the New Covenant that can appear to be universal but I reason are not always universal given specific post-New Covenant contradictions where we both constrained ourself to agreeing for the sake of argument that the Bible is inerrant (which he believes but I do not though I conceded such since I don't think it matters).
Your attempt to describe my argument leaves out the most critical aspect of my argument which David concedes, the inerrancy of the Bible and therefore the requirement all relevant passages must either be reconcilable or at a minimum not contradict each other.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 18, 2010 6:05 PM
Michael Heath,
I'm very glad to hear that I was misunderstanding you. It hardly seemed likely that you were arguing that God just really MUST communicate in a certain way, a way that happens to be similar to the way people communicate in business.
I am indeed familiar with all the passages in the Bible related to slavery, and familiar with the Old vs. New Covenant arguments. I don't have any trouble following Heddle's argument. I'm very familiar with the argument that God is not a person, implying that arguments based on what people do/say don't apply to God, and very familiar with the notion that the commandments to love God with all our etc. and other people as ourselves are intended to supercede the moral system of individual specific laws, not be just a prelude to new specific individual laws and prohibitions (don't own slaves, etc).
I think I understand several meanings of "inerrancy of the Bible," including the one Heddle uses.
If you have the time and patience, maybe you could give me another hint as to what the heart of your argument is? I have tried, I am not being sarcastic, I think I have all the qualifications that you have listed as necessary, but I'm just not grasping your point.
Posted by: JuliaL | March 18, 2010 8:35 PM
I have to agree with Gretchen (who lives in Texas and fits absolutely none of the stereotypes about the place) on how this thread has gone. At this point, Raging Bee is basically just being an asshole. And I should know, as I've had lots of practice being one myself.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 18, 2010 8:42 PM
I hate to, you know, be that guy again.. But.. Did the guy actually act out any of these statements, or was he "being obnoxious" by definition?
I mean, from what I read it seems like, in a legal sense they fired him on a harassment technicality, which is well and good and if he was harassing his coworkers, he should have been terminated.
But to be be quite over the top about it, if this is the shit this guy believes, we can't fire him for thinking something we don't agree with, only acting it out. It seems that most people kind of assume he's guilty of something worthy of being fired for just because he's an insensitive whackjob.. But that is not necessarily proper grounds for dismissal from his employment.
Posted by: Buffoon | March 19, 2010 1:31 AM
Maybe we should just spike the Texass water supply with Haldol.
Posted by: Buffy | March 19, 2010 4:11 AM
@Eric #74:
Imperialists!
Posted by: Robin Levett | March 19, 2010 8:43 AM
heddle: I'm disputing the entire notion that Jesus would deliberately obfuscate when he had a chance to show the truth clearly. Even by the standards of irrational supernatural beliefs, this simply makes no sense, and is completely contrary to the most basic thrust of Jesus' teachings, as every sane and decent person I've met understands them.
Practically all of the Christians I've met -- particularly those trying to convert me -- agree that ANYONE can understand the truth of Jesus' teachings, and repent and be Saved; therefore NO ONE has any excuse not to do so, and those who fail to do so will go to Hell.
As for "your interpretation" of the Bible passages you quoted, all I can say is the passage is so muddled that it's hard to get any clear message out of it. I do, however, note this bit with interest:
...the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: "'You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. m15For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ear and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.' (Matt 13:11-15)
This kind of implies that the people Isiah complained about were choosing not to see and understand; but they COULD choose to see and understand, and if they did, they would be able to at least begin to understand, and Jesus would heal them.
So no, the case for deliberate obfuscation is kinda weak here; and probably based more on your own every-neutrino-in-its-place determinism. Forcing people to look harder and think, maybe, but not deliberate obfuscation.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 19, 2010 9:17 AM
I've been trapped in Texas for seventeen years and Texas (as a state, as a majority of its citizens) is really, really, really exactly as willfully, proudly ignorant, as biased and bigoted, as intolerant and xenophobic as those enjoying more geographic sanity suspect it to be. And then some.
Posted by: Circe | March 19, 2010 10:29 AM
heddle:
I think you're referencing the wrong verses. Jesus does say he speaks in parables to hide the truth from outsiders; but that's in Mark 4:10-12. In Matthew 13:11-15 Jesus says the opposite! Here he says that the people are blind and deaf. Teaching them directly won't work. Instead he tells them parables: so that they might "understand with their heart and turn --- and I would heal them."
In Matthew 13:10-15 Jesus doesn't obfuscate. He speaks in parables to be understood.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | March 19, 2010 3:32 PM