Bonk Jobs Search for Dragons

Dig hoping to yeild evidence of "missionary lizards"

Lecturing to a rapt audience of 20 like-minded Christians after a hard day in the field, Russ McGlenn, a self-styled amateur archaeologist and palaeontologist and head of Adventure Safaris, said: "Heavenly Father, we thank You for the evidence of a catastrophic flood event. We thank You for the time to study Your creation. Heavenly Father, we thank You for the evidence of a catastrophic flood event."

Uhh...you already said that.

"It's just dumb to believe that everything came from one kind of bang or fish or something," said Katy Carlson, 13, one of the youngest on the dig.

Ah, the wisdom of youth. Christian youth, no less. I know, I shouldn't poke fun. She's probably a triple PhD in evolutionary biology, quantum physics and archeology and well qualified to make commentary regarding the "dumbness" of evolution.

Evolution is "the dumbest and most dangerous idea in the history of humanity", said Kent Hovind, a vocal enthusiast for the cause who also runs the theme park in Florida.

Actually, I believe the award for dumbest and most dangerous idea in the history of humanity goes to religion.

"Under God" Still Unconstitutional...Regardless of the Personal Opinions of WWII Vets

Old Coot re: Pledge and Foxes...or Something

My point? The 'Pledge of Allegiance' should remain as such. (As a pledge of allegiance? Fine, then there's no need for a reference to this nation being "under God" -- Apostate) Today, if a student doesn't want to read the pledge, he or she can leave the room and return when it's completed. And for those who are questioning the wording of the pledge and its constitutionality, I'd like to remind them of that World War II adage:

"There are no atheists in fox holes."

And Australia's all, "WTF, mate?". How does an old war adage from 60 years ago lend any constitutional weight to "under God" being in the pledge? Perhaps someone should remind this old man that the phrase "under God" wasn't even in the pledge during WWII and that even if it was, the "no atheists in fox holes" bullshit would still have no bearing on the constitutionality of the phrase. And while they're at it, they might remind him that this is 2004, not 1934. Going back to "the good ol' days" where women and children and minorities were beaten into submission (either psychologically or physically) will not make "under God" constitutional.

Bush wants Vatican to back his agenda

The president "complained that the U.S. bishops were not being vocal enough in supporting [Bush] on social issues like gay marriage, and abortion," a Vatican official privy to the discussion said.

Further proof that the former Governor of Texas really doesn't read the news. If he did, he'd know that several U.S. Bishops are on his side, going so far as to ban not only politicians who support abortion rights, but those who vote for them. Or maybe Bush really thinks ALL U.S. Bishops should hold such hardline views.

McClellan, pushed to give details about the discussion, said, "The positions of the president and the Vatican are well-known on those issues. ... I would just leave it at that."

In other words, "Mind your own god damn business! It isn't the media's job to ask questions, just to parrot our press releases!"

The legislators said denying communion to Catholics based on political beliefs would have "the effect of miring the church in partisan politics and allowing the church to be used for partisan purposes," and would "bring great harm to the church."

Which is just why church and state should are (legally, if not functionally) separate. But Bush couldn't care less about that. His only interest is in getting himself elected so he can push more Reich Wing politics, increase his own portfolio, and drive the country further into the ground.

Bonk Jobs Have No Sense of Humor

Some Christian teens can't forgive film

A handful of local moviegoers thinks the satire Saved! pokes fun at their faith.

Wow...nothing get's past teen Bonk Jobs these days.

"I was absolutely offended by it," says Bill Ware, 18, a recent graduate of First Academy, which is affiliated with First Baptist Church of Orlando.

"It pushed a dangerous and inaccurate stereotype of mainstream Christianity," he says. "It was trying to rip up hard-line Christianity and push a more accepting, pluralistic view."

Dude, you are SO not helping your cause. Thanks!

Ware says he worries about the movie's effect because "mainstream Americans allow movies to shape their views on this subject. It's dangerous and negative -- and can do a great deal of harm."

Umm...should someone tell this kid that it wasn't a documentary? Nahhhh...that'd just ruin all the fun.

Many Christians in major cities, where the film opened June 4, have criticized the portrayal of their faith. Their reactions have been much like that of Jay Lumpkins, 18, another graduate of First Academy. All the Christians in Saved! "seemed brainwashed," he says. "They couldn't really think for themselves."

Huh. Maybe it is a documentary. =)

Homophobes Trolling Churches...Where Else!

Foes of Gay Marrage Trolling Churches

"When everything's OK, you don't have a tendency to act," Keeley said. "But it gets to the point where you get concerned, and you have to act."

Ahhhhh!! The gays are coming! The gays are coming! Soon they'll be engaging in all manner of monstrosity! Expressing their love! Committing to one another! Raising children in loving homes! And (gasp) getting health benefits! We MUST put a stop to this!!

Organizers in Oregon...are turning to churches for support of their efforts to define marriage as between a man and a woman, a move political analysts call savvy.

This is savvy? It's like Repugs looking to mega-corporations for campaign contributions. It's just...well, damn obvious! Nothing savvy about it.

Chris Stewart, whose group, the Arkansas Marriage Amendment Committee, is leading efforts to ban gay marriage there, describes the petition drive as a "pre-emptive strike."

Ugh. I wish that phrase had never made its way into the lexicon.

Political analysts say visiting churches -- particularly those with more conservative Christian congregations -- gives signature collectors access to a receptive audience.

Duh! It's like going to a gun club to draft new NRA members!

"It's a very, very politically astute move," said Laura Olson, a political science professor at Clemson University

It's a no brainer! Why is everyone going so ga-ga over this?

"Marriage is at the very core of who we are as people of faith," said Phil Burress, whose Cincinnati-based group, Citizens for Community Values, is leading the petition drive in Ohio.

Uhh...shouldn't faith be at the very core of who they are as people of faith? Or maybe god, or theology, or something. Marriage is only a part of religion. It's just one sacrament. And it's not even exclusive to people of faith, for crying out loud!!!

"People are sincere about their beliefs," he said. "They want to make a change."

Huh?? What's changing? Certainly not marriage, if they have their way.

Clergy Discussing Abuse

U.S. catholic bishops to discuss clergy sex abuse

Meeting at the law offices of Touchem, Strokit, and Leev, U.S. Bishops have been discussing sex abuse. Inside sources have Father Holden McGroin quoted as saying, "I had this ten year old boy last week. Mm-mm-mmm. So young, so tender, so precious". Responding was Cardinal Phil Mi-Huevos, saying, "That's nothing, I'm in a very intmate relationship with an eight year old".

The bishops also will decide whether to override the objections of some U.S. church leaders and authorize a second round of audits of American dioceses — reviews that are aimed at determining whether the dioceses are doing enough to combat the molestation scandal.

Not whether the dioceses are doing enough to combat the molestation, but the molestation scandal. Nice.

Ronnie Jr. Good!

Looks like there's another Reagan for me to like. Patty Davis for basically doing whatever she could just to piss off her dad, and Ron Jr. Of course, the author of this piece takes being a Bonk Job to new heights of lunacy.

I don't have any quarrel with Reagan Jr.'s right to believe that there is no god. I just think it is absurd for him to preach about the misuse of religion in the political process of America and fail to postulate his comments with a statement that he is an atheist.

What difference does it make whether or not he comes out and says he's an atheist before he presents his views on religion in politics? The author sounds a lot like the kind of person who only votes based on party affiliation, without investing a moment's thought into what each candidate actually stands for. Isn't it more important to learn about a person through their stances, rather than through labels we apply? What difference does it make, regarding what Jr. is all about, whether he labels himself an atheist or a theist; a Democrat or Republican?

The media has an obligation to let America know that the atheism of Ron Reagan Jr. underlies his opposition to religion in the American body politic.

I wonder if it would it make the author more comfortable to know that a Christian opposed religion in American politics? Isn't the end result the same? Jr. doesn't want religion mixed with politics. And neither do a lot of Christians. But, I suppose, their opinions matter more, simply because they're Christian.

It is calloused beyond comprehension that the opinions of an atheist could be embraced by the American media without such a disclaimer.

Whatever...ya friggin' Bonk Job. Would it be "calloused beyond comprehension" that the opinions of a Christian -- regarding, say, the "Christian foundation" of America -- could be embraced in the American media without a disclaimer? I'd guess that the problem the author has isn't that the media "embraced" the views of an atheist without stating that said views came from an atheist, but that the views of an atheist were allowed to be expressed at all!

Further...no one, not Ron Reagan Jr., nor the American media has the right to deny any American's right to embrace, cherish, or emulate President Ronald Reagan and the principles he believed in, including his faith in God, if they wish to do so.

Wow. How terrible it must be to hold a world view so fragile that anyone speaking an opposing voice is a threat so fearsome as to be loathed and quelled. Neither Jr. nor the American media is trying to deny American rights and freedoms. They're simply exercising those rights. A real denial of freedom is insisting that disclaimers must accompany the views of atheists.

Thoughts on Congress Rendering the SCOTUS Useless

Question: What is the purpose of the Supreme Court of the United States?

Answer: To rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by the Congress.

Question: What would be the effect of Congress passing a law that bars the SCOTUS from ruling on matters of whether religious expression violates the Constitution?

Answer: Effectively rendering the SCOTUS powerless regarding certain matters of constitutionality.

Of course, that's just what conservative legislators want to do. They want to take the Supreme Court out of the picture. I wonder how they'd feel if the SCOTUS ruled that conservative legislators who try to outlaw the SCOTUS are unconstitutional and therefore banned from the lawmaking process and ever being elected again.

Consevative lawmakers to the Supreme Court: "We don't like you. You shut up!"

So...what if Congress passed a law saying that the SCOTUS could no longer rule on Constitutional matters -- which is, by the way, the Court's job. Can Congress pass laws effectively neutering the SCOTUS? If they can, they could outlaw the SCOTUS before it could ever rule on whether or not such a law was constitutional!

I'm sure, in my infinite wisdom of Constitutional law, I'm missing something. And so must conservative legislators who are trying to bar the SCOTUS from ruling on particular Constitutional matters.

Dube Builds a Cross

Did they spell his name wrong? Shouldn't it read "Dupe"? No, I guess Dube is the correct spelling. But he's messing with the wroooong people: the Zoning Board.

Noel Dube was a 62-year-old commissary officer at Fort Devens the morning he says his prayers were interrupted in his backyard in Pepperell by the gentle voice of the Virgin Mary.

I can't believe how matter-of-factly stories like this get reported. Hearing voices? It's the voice of a woman? Must be the virgin Mary! You're not simply hearing what you want to hear. And you're definitely not certifiable!

But Dube, a devout Roman Catholic who considered entering the seminary as a teenager, was also old enough to believe that when a man is fortunate enough to be spoken to by the mother of God, he'd better listen.

Oh yeah, you're soooo important in the grand scheme of things that out of the 6 BILLION people on the face of the planet, the mother of god chose to speak to you, so that you'd put up a cross on your lawn. Oh, the monumental importance of it all! A cross on your lawn! Can you imagine the awe people will feel at this miraculous thing you've done!

Freakin' nut-job.

"So I started thinking, what could I do? I mean, she didn't give me any directions or anything, she just said to build a shrine for the whole community to promote the rosary and to make [her] better known."

To make her better known?? Who does she think she is! The mother of your imaginary friend in the sky?? Oh...yeah.

Before Dube's cross arrived from the manufacturer near Montreal, he went to Pepperell's Town Hall to apply for a permit. When the clerk asked him for a site plan, Dube told him he couldn't provide one. The man who built the cross was going to decide where to erect it when he arrived. Jesus would direct him, said Dube, who never got the permit.

Yup, that's Jesus, alright. I tell ya! He never was one to plan ahead. Always kind of a seat-of-his-pants, ass-of-his-robe kind of a guy.

"I have no problem with it. He's a nice, nice guy," said Reale. "Other than the big, glowing cross we wouldn't know [the shrine] was there."

I love it when people get quoted saying really stupid things. "Other than the lights and the noise and the plummeting property values and the rednecks driving by puking out their windows, you'd never even know there was a NASCAR track right next door. Yessirree, it's like it's not even there!"

Dube, for his part, seems somewhat perplexed that the cross has created such a stir.

A clueless Bonk Job? You don't say!

He said that not only will he keep the cross up, but he also hopes to expand the shrine by buying the property on the other side of his house and building a chapel that will be open 24 hours a day. Right now he does not have the money, but he believes that will change.

"I'll hit the sweepstakes or some rich person will give it to me," Dube said with a confident chuckle. "Either way, I'm not picky. But I think it will happen."

Yup, he's delusional. Eighty-plus years of the church ramming a wholely unbelievable myth down his throat has led him to believe all manner of drivel. For instance, that a rich person will just give him money.

Smokers

Here at work, there is a policy of no smoking in the buildings. The smokers have to go outside. What's more, they're supposed to be no closer than 25' from the doors. I think it ought to be a hundred feet, but hey, that's me. Anyway, there are no overhangs to "protect" the smokers from the rain and when I came in this morning, it was raining and several smokers were huddled in the roll-up doorway through which vehicles enter and exit the factory. So, first off, they were standing in an area that pedestrians are never supposed to be (a driving lane in which large factory doors open and close automatically) and second, they were barely 25' from the pedestrian door.

But, besides that, what strikes me most is how afraid these guys are of getting a little wet. Do they worry that they might get sick? Sicker than, say, lung cancer from smoking? I mean, these guys are risk takers. Smoking is a hazzardous activity and yet they thumb their noses at the likelihood of getting a deadly disease. So why do they go to such lengths to avoid having to stand in a little bit of rain?? Come on, tough guys...get a little wet for your addiction!

Fortunetelling Ordinance

Federal Judge Strikes Down Ordinance

In a nutshell, the notice stated that the state of Tennessee has no requirements governing "the education, training or ability of fortunetellers, clairvoyants, palmists, phrenologists or other person claiming to be mystics endowed with supernatural powers."

So, will churches also be required to post this notice as it passes around the collection plate?

It also stated that it is a crime for any business to engage in deceptive practices.

Duh.

Illegal Bush Campaign

BushCo violating church/state campaign rules

A (Bush) campaign spokesperson in Pennsylvania admitted to Rabbi Jack Moline, a TIA board member, that the email was from the campaign but had only been intended for central Pennsylvania.

Oh, well, sure. It was only intended for central Pennsylvania. Perfectly alright, then. Not illegal at all to solicit churches for political support...provided they're central PA churches.

"If ever there were a question about the real intent of expanding faith-based initiatives and promoting a presence of religion in government, this tactic puts it to rest," Rabbi Moline said. "The Bush-Cheney campaign has dropped any pretense of honoring the separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution, and puts in jeopardy the non-profit status of 1600 houses of worship by asking them to engage in partisan politics. The President should repudiate this initiative immediately. 1600 Pennsylvania churches for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. How clever. How reprehensible."

"Sadly, the Bush campaign is willing to jeopardize churches' tax exempt status, by asking them to endorse his candidacy," said Rabbi Gregory S. Marx, Congregation Beth Or, and treasurer of the Southeast Pennsylvania Interfaith Alliance (SEPIA). "This is one further step, way past Bush's 'Faith Based Initiatives' towards blurring the necessary and historic lines separating church and state."

House Repugnants respond to BushCo's illegal campaign activity by introducing legislation to allow churches "a limited number of violations of the existing rules against political endorsements without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status".

Although its chances of enactment are uncertain, Democrats and other critics of the proposal argue that its timing suggests that Republicans are trying to bend the tax rules in time to help the president's re-election campaign.

You think?

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the timing "simply reeks to high heaven, literally."

But Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, called Mr. Lynn's view extreme.

"He would like to exclude people of faith from participating in America's civic life and participating in the political process," Mr. Schmidt said.

Yeah, that's what the Reverend Barry Lynn wants.

"That is just fundamentally wrong. The Bush campaign has an inclusive message. The campaign wants people of faith to participate in the political process."

No, the Bush campaign wants the followers of those church leaders it has in its pocket to vote as their pastors tell them.

The Safe Harbor for Churches provision is less sweeping than previous proposals to change the rules. It would greatly reduce the tax penalties for either one or two deliberate political endorsements in a calendar year and would also allow a church to make as many as three "unintentional" political endorsements in a calendar year without penalty. It does not define "unintentional.''

This is absolutely laughable. Will legislation be proposed soon allowing, say, a person to get stoned 3 times "unintentionally" as well as, oh, one or two times deliberately, but at a reduced penalty? "Hey, man...yeah, I was high, but it was totally an accident! This is my free-bee...catch ya later, Coppah!"

Shrek 2 Wrecks Fundie Bonk Job Values

Imagine how much less interesting the world would be without lunatic, fanatical fundie bonk-jobs who seriously believe that the purpose of Shrek 2 is to push a "transsexual agenda". What's the transsexual agenda, you ask? Read the article, but it's basically that everyone in the world should be transsexual. I know, it's difficult to understand how anyone could honestly believe that the producers of Shrek 2 want everyone in the world to become transsexual, in spite of the fact that surely the producers of Shrek 2 aren't transsexual themselves -- that is, until you realize that these are the same people that believe in a "homosexual agenda" that would have everyone on the planet be gay. I mean, really! How insecure about your own place in the world would you have to be to think that gays and lesbians wanted to turn you gay? (As if that were even possible).

Anyway, imagine! Who would we laugh at without these people? Okay, so there's no shortage of wackos out there at whom we can have a good chuckle, but still…

Shrek Wrecking Family Values

He's lost his damn marbles

He used to just be a moron...now he's gone insane:

Bush's Actions Worrying Aides