Liberals Channel Lucifer, Film at 11

Just when you think the Worldnutdaily can't get any more ridiculous, they publish this tripe from Kevin McCullough entitled, Why Liberals Channel Lucifer. I can't even begin to parody that, so I won't even try.

More like this

I think the title of McCullough's book pretty much sums it up; "MuscleHead Revolution: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking."MuscleHead" is a perfect description of what resides in Kevin's cranium. He says;

"Not that liberals have any interest in truly understanding people of faith in America, because they don't. But if they did, they would never be able to handle the structure of rational, truth-based, common-sense thinking that pervades the communities of the devout today."

That may well be the most patently absurd statement I've ever heard- and he sure doesn't look very muscular.

This is actually frightening:

Lynn's remarks, while they sound even downright democratic, falsely portray the ultimate outcome of tearing down the one institution free society is dependent upon for its survival - heterosexual marriage.

Curious about what Barry Lynn's remarks were? They are as usual very shocking, so hang on to your hats:

Also on "The O'Reilly Factor" this week, the "Reverend" Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State in promoting his new book, "Piety and Politics," argued for the definition of marriage to be returned to "individuals, who are making choices, based largely on their own 'theological' views about what marriage is."

Translation: So even though the "Reverend" (what a fuckstick McCullough is) Barry Lynn sounds democratic, he really isn't because democracy and freedom can't exist unless everyone defines marriage the way I do.

WTF? On what planet does this even sound even remotely reasonable? Lynn's remarks "sound democratic" because they are democratic, not because they just appear to be at first glance. What an absolute asshat this guy is.

Further, it is apparent that McCullough really means to say our very freedom depends on preventing gays from having equal rights. He says that our freedom depends on hetero marriage, but there's a problem. Hetero marriage will continue unabaited no matter what.

Conversely, it is only if our freedom is instead dependent on preventing gay marriage that we have a problem. We must prevent it from occuring if we are to remain a free society, aren't we? As usual this has nothing to do with protecting hetero marriage and the lie is as transparent as it is deplorable.

I wanted to finish with a grand flourish of vicious abuse and stark condemnations, but the argument that we must secure our freedom at the expense of a minority group is so morally abominable and frightening that I am having a hard time finding a way to adequately express my contempt for it.

(And this is, of course, aside from the silly argument that there is some sort of one-to-one relationship between heterosexual marriage and freedom.

Which is just painfully, blindingly retarded.)

Once again the religous right is projecting. They tend to see in everyone else what is inside them.

This could be a "Church Lady" skit. "Now just who makes you want to raise taxes and confiscate guns? Mmmm, who could it be...."

By Bill Jarrell (not verified) on 14 Oct 2006 #permalink

What McCullough doesn't understand is that almost no one really abandons the notion of good and evil. Some of us just expect him to justify his concepts with something more rational than 3000 years of prejudice.