…and this is a 
The apologists will now explain to us that these people don't actually exist
Category: Kooks • Politics • Religion
Posted on: August 10, 2007 2:00 PM, by PZ Myers
The wingnuts are still outraged that there is a Muslim in congress and that a Hindu delivered an opening prayer (which was pretty dang lame, anyway). Now look at this silly little man (R-Idaho) ranting about the death of America:
Last month, the U.S. Senate was opened for the first time ever with a Hindu prayer. Although the event generated little outrage on Capitol Hill, Representative Bill Sali (R-Idaho) is one member of Congress who believes the prayer should have never been allowed.
"We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes -- and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers," asserts Sali.
Sali says America was built on Christian principles that were derived from scripture. He also says the only way the United States has been allowed to exist in a world that is so hostile to Christian principles is through "the protective hand of God."
"You know, the Lord can cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike," says the Idaho Republican.
According to Congressman Sali, the only way the U.S. can continue to survive is under that protective hand of God. He states when a Hindu prayer is offered, "that's a different god" and that it "creates problems for the longevity of this country."
We've been having a little discussion in the comments here about the insensibility of satire and parody in this age of Christian lunacy. Take a look at the comments on that article — they are almost all effusive in their praise for Sali and are howling about how America must be ruled by the One True God™. These recent parodies of various Republican presidential candidates are amusing, but there's a reality out there that's far crazier and far scarier.
But these people don't exist, I have often been told. The religious are thoughtful, progressive, inoffensive types.
Comments
They exist in abundance alas. Apologists always like to point to Thomas Aquinas and the like but the vast majority of the religious are far closer to this end of the spectrum. This is why we need 'militant atheists' like PZ and Dawkins.
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | August 10, 2007 2:14 PM
Article VI of 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."
Are idiots like Sali ignorant of the Constitution, or do they just hate it?
Posted by: NickM | August 10, 2007 2:21 PM
I read about Mr. Sali last night. The dude is ignorant, intollerant and flat out crazy. Email him.
I did.
Posted by: Loc | August 10, 2007 2:23 PM
Posted by: Brownian | August 10, 2007 2:25 PM
Nick, both most likely. After all most of the religious don't know their own bible why should they know the constitution any better?
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | August 10, 2007 2:26 PM
Representative Bill Sali makes me puff up with pride at being an atheist. I know that one of the things the right-wing nut jobs always point out about so many of us non-believers is that we're supposedly such inappropriately proud folk, but who can help it? Yes, I am proud that I don't have to try to explain away nuts like Sali who believe the same as me.
Posted by: Dahan | August 10, 2007 2:27 PM
Posted by: Brownian | August 10, 2007 2:27 PM
Is this Xian god in competition with a Hindu god? I thought the Hindus had thousands of gods, anyway.
Huh, it's no contest! The Hindus win. Maybe not, though. The Xian god is omniscient & omnipotent, so it's no contest again, but this time the Xians win. "You know, the Lord can cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike," says the Idaho Republican. Well, there's been awful flooding in the Indian sub-continent, so there you go. (I apologize for being insensitive towards all those unfortunate people who've suffered in the flooding, but these religious fools make me mad.)
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | August 10, 2007 2:29 PM
From the story's comments:
That right there is what makes bible-thumpers so obnoxious ... and scary. They don't recognize rules made by man when they conflict with the rules made by their laaawd. I don't always agree with PZ's stance, but in situations like this, you really do need to fight fire with fire. It says right there in that person's quote that they don't care about being nice and being liked. They care about enforcing their warped world view on the rest of us.
Posted by: Brandon | August 10, 2007 2:30 PM
well, he's half right:
a hindu prayer should never have been allowed to open congress. not because it's hindu instead of christian. but because it's a prayer.
seriously though, it's like these people we're electing haven't even read the constitution. could they pass a high school civics class? oh, right. education is a product of the liberal agenda. and by "liberal agenda" i mean "satan."
Posted by: arachnophilia | August 10, 2007 2:31 PM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | August 10, 2007 2:34 PM
oh. and people like that obviously do exist. i think the apologetic perspective is more one of a no-true-scotsman fallacy than anything else.
the question should be, "do thoughtful, progressive, inoffensive religious people exist?" i would say yes, but there certainly don't seem to be very many.
Posted by: arachnophilia | August 10, 2007 2:34 PM
As opposed to the patent-pending god.
Posted by: John Danley | August 10, 2007 2:36 PM
Being a politician, it's hard to tell if Sali is expressing his true thoughts, or playing to the gallery. All politicians have to both live in and project reality distortion fields. It's the only way they survive.
My suspicion is that it's for home consumption. No one outside the Deep Red States could maintain that Hindus and Muslims are degrading America when the US military recognizes some 100 different faiths, including Wicca, Hindu, Buddhism, and Islam.
Sali is running for re-election and may need a boost from the hatemongers back home in his red state of Idaho. He seems to have a long-standing reputation as being to the right of Mussolini. It's been noted that he's resented even by the moderate forces in his own party. In sum, he's a Bushie from a constituency that lives in perpetual fear of bogeymen. His bio says he's an attorney and former Caterpillar machinery salesman. It's hard to tell which profession prepared him more thoroughly for his current calling.
Posted by: Tim | August 10, 2007 2:37 PM
The thin margin by which I stay sane is the three or so miles separating me from Mr. Sali's congressional district. Twenty miles further to the west is Nampa, where they hold an annual God and Country festival. The whole west side of the Treasure Valley is full of suburban wingnuts who have fled more leftist places (California, mostly) for cheap land and fewer brown people (not so much anymore on the latter count, however). They voted in Helen Chenoweth and now Bill Sali. There's pretty much no hope for them.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 10, 2007 2:43 PM
The fundies are still whingeing about that "Xian Nation" garbage?
Morons.
Posted by: John Marley | August 10, 2007 2:49 PM
I love the idea of religious diversity in our government! I think it should be extended to other areas, like our coinage:
"In Allah We Trust"
"In Flying Spaghetti Monster We Trust"
"In Zeus We Trust"
"In Ganesha We Trust"
And our Pledge:
"One Nation, under Allah, indivisible "
"One Nation, under FSM, ..."
Posted by: Doug | August 10, 2007 2:50 PM
uh oh. i think i'm on to him....!
Posted by: dan | August 10, 2007 2:57 PM
"the United States has been allowed to exist in a world that is so hostile to Christian principles is through "the protective hand of God."
Is it me or do these people seem to get crazier every time?
Is there no end to their insanity and outright arrogance?
It's like they are trying to outdo the (mostly made-up) characters int their scriptures for sheer lunacy, ignorance and intolerance.
I'd like to call them out for what they are: FASCISTS!!!
In Marcus Brigstocke's words: can we for fuck's sake have our world back?
This has gone far enough now, can we get on with important issues now, like the billions of people starving, the mess we made of our environment, the stupid bickering over pieces of dried out land, worldwide corruption, monipolisation etc. I don't see any piece of dogmatic cultist shit religion doing anything about any of that without maybe those that do because so they can win new brainwashed moneydonating 'souls'.
I need a drink...
Posted by: Carl | August 10, 2007 2:59 PM
That's the AFA's "news" arm, and comments on its stories are moderated. I don't doubt that most of the commenters are effusive, but it's also possible that many posts that don't suit the tone the moderators are after don't make it in.
Posted by: Mary | August 10, 2007 2:59 PM
I need more than one drink. Reading through the comments is enough to make me want to renounce my oath of enlistment.
Posted by: Josh | August 10, 2007 3:02 PM
In reading articles like this and their comments it never ceases to amaze me how people can be so arrogant to believe that their god is the right and all others are doomed.
Posted by: Mike | August 10, 2007 3:04 PM
I've honestly never seen a comments thread as pridefully deluded as that one. That's the worst I've ever seen. I feel incredibly angry right now. How do you change the minds of people who take so much pride in their ignornace?
Posted by: Mike P | August 10, 2007 3:09 PM
But these people don't exist, I have often been told. The religious are thoughtful, progressive, inoffensive types.
That's a nice strawman you've got there, but I think it needs a better hat.
Posted by: tonyl | August 10, 2007 3:11 PM
If you REALLY believe there is an omniscient, omnipresent being who can read your every thought and judge your every deed and, if He doesn't like what you think or do, sentence you to an eternity of pain, you SHOULD behave like Sali. His statements are the LOGICAL consequence of an ILLOGICAL belief system.
That is why PZ (Dawkins, et al) is right to not just criticize individual religious people's words and actions, but the belief system itself.
Posted by: Sonja | August 10, 2007 3:15 PM
This sort of 'thinking' is not confined to the deep red states by any means. There are quite a lot of people who think that way in Los Angeles county where I work. Even more in Kern county where I live.
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | August 10, 2007 3:15 PM
I say, deprive them of the fruits of others' intelligence. Don't like Arabs? Then create your own system of numerals. Think the world is ~6,000 years old? Then you'd better find your own oil using flood geology or learn to ride horses. Think radiometric dating is a fraud? Then we won't have to worry about you building any 'nuculer' missiles, won't we?
Seriously, isn't there some state you can ship 'em all to where they can revel in their lack of sin and pray to God to provide?
Posted by: Brownian | August 10, 2007 3:20 PM
Ed already blogged about this. You lose, PZ. Hand over your lunch money.
Posted by: Raging Braytard | August 10, 2007 3:26 PM
That the American public doesn't understand their own Constitution is a shame.
But for the people responsible for making the laws in this country to not understand it is absolutely inexcusable.
Posted by: tsg | August 10, 2007 3:27 PM
Brownian,
There was, but we overthrew the taliban.
Posted by: Cheeto | August 10, 2007 3:31 PM
I'm just so sick and fvcking tired of Christians, the "born again evangelical" kind who believe these United States are their's and their's alone. And, that it's their God given right to set the rules.
How did these nutters get so empowered? And why do we have to give a sh1t about what they think?
These fvcktards are going to be the downfall of this once great nation.
Posted by: Steverino | August 10, 2007 3:37 PM
"Religions are always open, tolerant, and reasonable if viewed without bias from a secular stance: when people or groups which claim to be "religious" are close-minded, intolerant, and superstitious it's only because they're distorting the True Meaning of their own faith, in order to support some other, personal agenda."
Yeah, right.
There's been a sort of gentleman's agreement among intellectuals in our culture that this is the very best way to approach religion. Bend over backwards to give the most charitable, secular, reasonable interpretation of a faith the status of what the religion really means.
It goes: The problem isn't the religion, it's not the value placed on "having faith" -- it's the bad people who twist theology around. Islam is a religion of peace; Christianity is a religion of love. Faith is hope and good will. Atheists like Dawkins and Myers just pick unrepresentative samples of Faith Gone Wrong in order to criticize it. These "samples" are unrepresentative even if they constitute 90% of the adherents.
No. No more free ride. The problem isn't people who "distort" something which is clearly good. It's the inherent ambiguity in a system which can redefine good around without any worldly checks and balances.
On a related note, check out this description of "Christian Atheism."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml
At last, we find the theological source for all those sneering reviews of The God Delusion:
"Oh, dear me, Richard Dawkins foolishly attacks a literalist straw-man form of theism which virtually nobody holds to: there is a VERY SOPHISTICATED UNDERSTANDING of Christianity out there which suffers from NONE of the flaws which the naive and uninformed Richard Dawkins attempts to 'debunk.'"
I had wondered what it was. Nice to know.
Posted by: Sastra | August 10, 2007 3:38 PM
Okay, then what if we give you guys Manitoba as a fundie repository?
I'm sure the protective hand of God will keep 'em warm through the cold Canadian winter. (As for whether God's protective hand will keep them out of a polar bear's gullet, I'm not so sure that it matters too much: polar bears are endangered, fundies are not.)
Posted by: Brownian | August 10, 2007 3:41 PM
There is. It is called Idaho. They have already arrived.
Don't forget that Idaho is the home of the Christian Identity wingnuts such as the Aryan Nations neonazis. Sali is a bleeding heart liberal to some of these guys.
Posted by: raven | August 10, 2007 3:42 PM
If we let Muslims into Congress Allah will learn all our state secrets and use them against us. What if Allah can beat up Yahweh? Then what do we do? Yahweh could even get jealous and turn against us. This is a horrible precedent. I mean I know Allah, Buddah, Kali and all the rest are only false gods, but what if they aren't? People should thank Yahweh for intelligent,reasonable, thoughtful people like Sali. But his name seems kind of foreign to me. I'm so confused.
Posted by: confused | August 10, 2007 3:48 PM
These people don't actually exist.
And tonyl has got you dead to rights, Professor Myers. It's not that we're told that these people don't exist, but that they are just a fringe minority, not, you know, fucking US Congressmen, or governors of Missouri, or Republican candidates for President, or consulted by this administration about Supreme Court appointments, or...
So you take it all back, or tonyl will taunt you a second time.
Posted by: mds | August 10, 2007 3:49 PM
I seem to recall that the ancient Israelites were 'under gods protection' being his 'chosen people.' Isaac Asimov once quipped that he wished god would chose some other people to see how much they would like it.'
Posted by: mothra | August 10, 2007 3:50 PM
I tried to post over there, but it kept erroring out, until finally it told me I had posted too many times. It seems their servers might be programmed to deny reality, as well.
Posted by: Leon | August 10, 2007 3:50 PM
Now, Brownian, that kind of inappropriate and inciting speech is where I *absolutely* have to draw the line.
After all, what did the polar bears ever do to deserve that?
Posted by: thalarctos | August 10, 2007 3:58 PM
Well, it saddens me to admit that I reside in Sali's district. Rey Fox, my neighbor, is largely right in the local demographic breakdown, which makes me a proud representative of the non-believers -- an extremely small minority. Dangerously small, in fact.
I think Tim really nailed it though -- this is designed for local consumption. Supporters of people like Sali and Bush REALLY DON'T CARE what you or I think. Its a simple thing, but a point easily missed. People like Sali are so utterly convinced (and have the power to reinforce that belief) they are right, there is virtually no way to convince them otherwise.
An interesting anecdote: I walk my dogs in my neighborhood daily, and occasionally talk briefly with a young couple a few blocks away. They have four or five kids. Nice people. About a month ago, I discovered that the woman is Sali's daughter. Two days later, I was struck by the calloused commentary Sali made in our local paper stating that the war in Iraq would be fought by "our children's children." Then I thought about his grandkids playing in my neighborhood. I wonder if I should inform them . . .
For a complete guide to Sali's antics from a local perspective that may surprise non-Idahoans, go here:
http://mountaingoatreport.typepad.com/the_mountaingoat_report/
Posted by: Akitagod | August 10, 2007 3:59 PM
Godbotherers are the cwaziest people!
Posted by: Snark | August 10, 2007 4:05 PM
Actually, PZ is wrong about this one, starting right from the title: The apologists will now explain to us that these people don't actually exist.
I believe the correct response to "people like Sali are dangerous religious nuts" is "Oh yeah? Well, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were all atheists."
Posted by: Brownian | August 10, 2007 4:10 PM
I'm not even from America, and even I know the US Constitution better than he does. The Constitution of the United States nowhere mentions the words "God", "Jesus" or "Christ". The one mention of "our Lord" comes right at the bottom where it says what date it was signed.
The Declaration of Independence talks about a "Creator" but doesn't specifically say "the Lord God" or "Christ". It also mentions "Nature's God" - which tends to indicate something closer to the Deist or Spinozan concept of the divine.
And then there's the first Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Hardly sounds like a Christian theocracy to me.
Posted by: Electric Dragon | August 10, 2007 4:13 PM
Brownian,
No, no, and NO. Hitler was a Catholic who thought he was doing the Lord's work.
As for the rest, you don't have to be religious to be an a**hole, and there are plenty of other mass murderers to choose from in our history.
Posted by: Leon | August 10, 2007 4:37 PM
Electric Dragon, you're exactly right. Unfortunately a large percentage of Americans have trouble understanding that very simple bit of logic.
We've become highly susceptible to simplistic, black-and-white thinking, to accepting statements that sound good on the surface (and getting upset if anyone tries to point out there might be something wrong with those statements), and therefore also to demagoguery. It's a very dangerous trend in our body politic, one which I'm honestly worried may lead to the end of our democracy before long.
Posted by: Leon | August 10, 2007 4:42 PM
Apologists always like to point to Thomas Aquinas and the like
...which in itself is specious, as Aquinas was responsible for the justification of torture of heretics to purify them prior to burning at the stake. IMHO, he was no saint...
Posted by: AlanWCan | August 10, 2007 4:43 PM
Dragon, you bring up a good historical point that has little to do with Mr. Sali per se.
The "Founding Fathers" he quotes almost never mention Jesus or Christ in their writings. They were largely deists and theists, and often rather indifferent ones privately. Some of them went to so far as to list an organization like Masonry for their religion of choice. They were devout in their way, but few were fanatical. Most were Anglican or Presbyterian, both of whom were far less intrusive than offshoots like the Puritans. John Adams was no evangelist, and Ben Franklin even less so. The Father of Our Country was ostensibly an Anglican and attended church on occasion, but he rarely talked about it. Emphasis on Jesus was mainly confined to the Catholics, but primarily on the part of church officials. Most of the Founding Fathers, in fact, had no interest in pushing religion anywhere, on anyone. When they would, on occasion, use terms like "a Christian nation", they didn't mean literally. Reading around the passages, it's obvious they mean something more like "an enlightened nation". Most of them were actually well-educated by the lights of the times, and were keenly interested in reason, logic, and philosophy.
It was actually the Stone-Campbell movement of the American 18th and 19th century that we have to thank for all this "Christian nation" nonsense. It was during that so-called "Second Great Awakening" that American Protestants began to form many splinter groups that had to fight for converts. Just like polarizing American politics, American religion became ever more Balkanized and mean-spirited, losing almost entirely the benign and unintrusive moderation of the Founding Fathers.
Posted by: Tim | August 10, 2007 4:44 PM
Leon, I believe Brownian was playing the part of the religious apologist there. I'm betting all the regular readers of this blog know that Hitler was Christian.
Posted by: kmarissa | August 10, 2007 4:45 PM
Wait a sec... he's scared of a guy named Keith???
Over a difference of opinion about imaginary friends?
Wuss.
Posted by: markbt73 | August 10, 2007 4:48 PM
Oh the irony.
When the western half of the Roman Empire began to suffer political collapse in the fifth century, pagan commentators complained this was the result of the abandonment of the tradional gods that had protected Rome for 700 years and more.
What newer religious belief had been officially adopted by Rome in the fourth century that so offended these traditional gods so that they withdrew their protection?
Christianity, of course.
David E.
Posted by: David Elliott | August 10, 2007 4:49 PM
I know all that, Leon. I was just pointing out a favourite retort by many theists.
My favourite response to the assertion that I must not have any morals as an atheist because nothing stops me from murdering and robbing people is still "Hmm, good point. Say, how much cash are you carrying in your wallet?"
Posted by: Brownian | August 10, 2007 4:51 PM
For some reason, this conversation caused a flashback to a junior high school civics class. My teacher said, "We've only had one non-Christian president: John F. Kennedy."
Wingnuts are special in their ability to create a condensate of wrong.
Posted by: Dustin | August 10, 2007 4:52 PM
We really need to dispell this misguided notion that the Founders had a Christian nation in mind.
My comment in the thread over there (I will be emailing something similar to Rep. Sali):
This country was not founded on Christian principles. Rather, it was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment. Among the most important principles put forth by the Founders was that of religious freedom.
The First Amendment to the constitution states quite clearly that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ."
For those who doubt the intent of those words, I suggest you read another work by their author, James Madison, titled "The Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom."
To state that the Founders intended this to be a Christian nation is simply ludricrous.
Posted by: povertyrich | August 10, 2007 4:57 PM
Personally, I'm going to write a letter to Elaine Pagels. She believes in God, but not in wingnuts.
Posted by: Dustin | August 10, 2007 4:59 PM
I want all prayer out of these public events. All of it.
"One nation, under God"? Gone.
"In God we trust"? Outta here.
Congressional prayers? Done.
With our infrastructure crumbling, the war failing, the mortgage market falling apart, health care increasingly out of reach, and consumerism gone nuts, the last thing we need is politicians who appeal to non-existent spirits. I'm pretty sure that many, though certainly not all, of our country's founders, would be sickened by Sali's words.
Posted by: MikeM | August 10, 2007 5:00 PM
"The rain it falls upon the just,
And, too, upon the unjust fellows;
But more upon the just, because
The unjust have the just's umbrellas."
Posted by: Ray C. | August 10, 2007 5:00 PM
I decided to leave my own comment for fun (I doubt they'll post it):
WAY TO GO MR. SALI.
I for one do not want a cuntry that is ruled buy people who dont now whom is the one true God. Are Lord and Savior is the one and only Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. For anyone to say otherwise is blasfeming the Bible witch is the only word of God. I for one dont read nothing but the Bible.
Thou shat have no other Gods before you! (Leviticus 18:49)
Mr. Sali know this and he will join are Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in eternal bliss. Why by a cow if you can have the milk for free (Corinthians 22:04)
God Bless You Mr. SALI.
Posted by: Turd Ferguson | August 10, 2007 5:08 PM
Me? I think leading the congress in an atheist prayer would be an enormous time saver, and it wouldn't leave anyone with anything to complain about.
Posted by: Dustin | August 10, 2007 5:18 PM
Guy not only doesn't know his Constitution, he doesn't know his Bible either. Last I checked the recommended means of forestalling God's Rain had nothing to do with hatin' on Muslims or only reciting the appropriate prayers... A li'l context - this is from the end of the Beatitudes (Mark 5):
Respect to people we disagree with? Why, that's un-american!
Though I do have to say, next time they call us the "Democrat Party" I may have to start calling them the Publicans.
Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | August 10, 2007 5:25 PM
"You know, the Lord can cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike," says the Idaho Republican.
Yeah but can the Lord cause the rain to fall on only the just or on only the unjust? That would be something if the Lord can do that. But no, the Lord can only do the same things that the rain can do. :-(
Posted by: ÒÓ 386sx ÒÓ | August 10, 2007 5:25 PM
lol...sorry Brownian. Chalk me up for missing my sense of humor today, or for being in a not-gettin'-the-joke frame of mind, or something. I thought that sounded way out of character given the rest of your posts!
Posted by: Leon | August 10, 2007 5:29 PM
Turd Ferguson:
I just got off a conf call with a colleague from south Georgia... so
ah hayd no trawbil ayt awl readin yor note up thayr.
Luckily I was OFF the call, cos I burst out laughing when I read it.
Posted by: tony | August 10, 2007 5:29 PM
Just so we're clear, that's pronounced "pYOOOb-licans", right?
Posted by: Dustin | August 10, 2007 5:30 PM
I want all prayer out of these public events. All of it.
"One nation, under God"? Gone.
"In God we trust"? Outta here.
Congressional prayers? Done.
...I'm pretty sure that many, though certainly not all, of our country's founders, would be sickened by Sali's words.
Hear, hear, MikeM! It's just nonsensical that any of those things are tolerated, let alone standard practice. What in the world was wrong with "E Pluribus Unum" as our country's motto, anyway?
Posted by: Leonb | August 10, 2007 5:33 PM
"...there is a Muslim in congress and that a Hindu delivered an opening prayer"
And two notable Bush appointees: the Muslim ambassador to the United Nations and the Muslim director of the NIH.
Posted by: Colugo | August 10, 2007 5:36 PM
Sounds a mite pinko if'n you ask me, tha's whut.
Posted by: Brownian | August 10, 2007 5:37 PM
Yeah but can the Lord cause the rain to fall on only the just or on only the unjust?
By that I mean like the guy in the comics who walks around with the cloud always raining on him. But no, the Lord can't do that. The Lord has to rain on everybody all at the same time just like the rain does.
Posted by: 386sx | August 10, 2007 5:37 PM
Nicely done, Turd Ferguson. It's sad, though, that the level of discourse on that side is such that it'll be hard for people to tell that your posting is deliberate satire.
But I, for one, am fascinated by the sentence referencing the Bible witch! It reminds me of that movie...maybe we could do a sequel: The Bible Witch Project. That might really get the fundamentalists up in arms.
Posted by: Leon | August 10, 2007 5:37 PM
Leon and Tony,
If you're bored and want to have some fun, just join a Christian forum and post messages like that with all sorts of typos and weirdness. You'll laugh your ass off while doing it and then even more when you see the responses. Its fun to see how far you can push it before someone catches on.
Posted by: Turd Ferguson | August 10, 2007 5:49 PM
Oh yeah, all that high-falutin' Latin. I guess it just didn't have that red-meat Amurrikun ring to it that we needed during the Cold War.
Posted by: Leonb | August 10, 2007 5:59 PM
Of course the good folk like Sali are correct. How can one doubt that a superhuman created man by breating into a pudddle of mud only to then spend thousands of earth-years dilegently tuning the ultimate christian society. Why is it that unbelievers simply fail to understand the mysterious ways in which god works. The earth was formed 4003 BC with fossils, rocks, and mature isotopic decay in place to test the believers. And god protects America.
Live with it!
Posted by: Surelock Homes | August 10, 2007 6:00 PM
Sez that rite their in Spartacus 34:93
And you always capitulize the word "God"!
Posted by: Turd Ferguson | August 10, 2007 6:21 PM
Oh, my. I haven't read the comments yet, but what can one say? Things do seem to be coming to a head. Why do men like Sali, who refuse to learn about the history of their own country, insist on trying to rule it?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 10, 2007 6:36 PM
Yeah, "E Pluribus Unum" ain't no religis refrence (I never thought I'd say this, but thank you, Turd).
Posted by: MikeM | August 10, 2007 6:37 PM
PS:
"In Hastur The Unspeakable We Trust"
Posted by: Kseniya | August 10, 2007 6:39 PM
Ewe our wailcomb.
Posted by: Turd Ferguson | August 10, 2007 6:46 PM
PPS:
Is Idaho home to anyone by the name of Nehemiah Scudder? Rumor has it there's a Scudder out there somewhere, a rising star just waiting for his time to shine.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 10, 2007 6:48 PM
Off topic, but I'm having fun on a forum discussion regarding moments of silence. Here is my post:
Have I pushed it too far?
Posted by: Turd Ferguson | August 10, 2007 7:16 PM
"praying to macaca"
priceless! =)
Posted by: skyotter | August 10, 2007 7:19 PM
Looks like they're no longer publishing comments...tis a pity, I left a nice quote from Mark Twain.
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Posted by: Seamus Ruah | August 10, 2007 7:31 PM
That might be too far. How're they taking it?
Posted by: Leon | August 10, 2007 7:32 PM
Twains quote is appropriate for preventing intrusion on others. However, I can't be indifferent when a religion, Islam, calls for my persecution and extermination. Sorry folks, I'm not tolerant of the intolerant.
Posted by: Brian Macker | August 10, 2007 7:35 PM
Yeah, Seamus, they didn't let me post either. Too bad, I had a dose of common sense to add.
Posted by: Leon | August 10, 2007 7:36 PM
Brian, that's a good point but it only applies to extremist Islam. It also applies to extremist Christianity. I agree that we shouldn't tolerate the intolerant, but that doesn't mean fundamentalist Christianity gets a pass.
Posted by: Leon | August 10, 2007 8:01 PM
Merciful Christ on a pogo stick, do you ever THINK before you post/talk?
Posted by: Caledonian | August 10, 2007 8:07 PM
Not to be completely off-topic... but this is just too good. Look at Bill Richardson's comments regarding his statement of homosexuality being a choice. "I was confused about the question... I think Melissa used the word 'biological'."
Maybe we need a dedicated debate among the candidates concerning scientific literacy, and its role in politics.
Posted by: Ryan | August 10, 2007 8:07 PM
That might be too far. How're they taking it?
So far the only comment on my post questioned "macaca", but went on to say that he agreed with me. Wow.
Posted by: Turd Ferguson | August 10, 2007 8:43 PM
It sounds like hes a few Freds short of a Phelps.
"He also says the only way the United States has been allowed to exist in a world that is so hostile to Christian principles is through "the protective hand of God."
Posted by: anonomouse | August 10, 2007 9:17 PM
Posted by: El Christador | August 10, 2007 9:39 PM
The old saying about the sun shining and the rain falling on the righteous and sinner alike means that being religiously faithful doesn't