America’s Christian problem

See, we’re used to the Catholics by now.

We’re mostly Protestant anyway; never did trust the wops.

Look at the Kennedys.

But raping children isn’t limited to the Catholics. In fact, the problem isn’t even limited to raping children. Or raping boys. Or assaulting children.

Note that no one is accusing Obama of being a dominionist.

See? Over the course of the weekend, somewhere between 80,000 and 300,000 people got together in D.C. and declared that I was the cause of all their problems. People “turning away from God” blah-blah-blah.

I mean, here I am, smearing poor Christians. I made those guys impregnate children and beat their wives and shit. I’m only doing this because I hate God and America. Except that I’ve never actually read anything by Richard Dawson. But apparently they still feel the need to take America back.

In short? The same exclusionary bullshit we heard from the moral majority back in the 80s.

And let’s not pretend this has anything to do with religion; this has to do with stupidity as a source of unhappiness. How many times has the religious right hooked up with the GOP only to be blown off in favor of big oil after the election?

I don’t assign any particular significance to the current claims of “outrage” because I already know that it’s completely unsolvable. Self-created, self-perpetuated, arising inside an impenetrable bubble. I play absolutely no part in it outside the fact that I don’t exist within that vacuum myself, and even if I could be persuaded or forced to either conform or go away, it would have absolutely no impact on the problem. If I conveniently ceased to exist, blame would simply be shifted to someone else.

Bottom line: these days, when somebody says they’re “Christian”, I don’t assume it means anything good OR anything bad. It’s ceased to mean anything at all.

I’ll be damned if a one of them is going to tell me I had anything to do with it, however. They did it to themselves.

  • Trackback are closed
  • Comments (3)
    • Max Bell
    • August 31st, 2010

    For the literal-minded who will miss the sarcasm in this, the point is not to make Christians look bad, but to highlight why the anti-Islamic arguments made by some of them fail. Arguments that attempt to generalize the specific to the whole never work.

    • Chester Emerson
    • September 2nd, 2010

    Ya see, there’s loads of folks that call themselves Christians who’ve never read the Bible. They take someone else’s word for what it says. They’ve never really looked at what Christ taught or tried to understand it. Let alone follow it. So, yeah, I would call them hypocrites of the first order. Counterfeit Christians are the best way to describe them.

    • Max Bell
    • September 2nd, 2010

    Who _doesn’t_ lay claim to an understanding of the “true” meaning of Christian orthodoxy, however?

    I didn’t cherry pick any of these examples — I just linked the first handful I pulled out of Dan Savage’s “O they will know we are Christians” posts from the Stranger’s blog. It’s something I’d considered doing for a couple of years and never did — just seemed kind of mean. But then you get fifty bazillion other examples of people characterizing this group or that by generalizing these kinds of things as representative.

    What really prompted it was Glenn Beck going on about “turning away from God” — it took less than 24 hours before I was hearing some self-described evangelical explaining that Mormonism could only “charitably” be defined as “the forth Abrahamic faith”. Certainly there’s some schadenfreude involved, but my overarching reaction is that I’m watching someone lament the dismantling of an idea by doing the very thing that is dismantling it.

    Not that I think the effort had anything to do with anything except the Tea Party trying to distance itself from it’s own crazy before the midterms. In the same breath, it doesn’t appear to have accomplished that end on more than a superficial level.

Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: