“Pro-Life”, my Cranky A**: Republicans fight for their right to kill children.

Really? No, seriously, REALLY? Christ on a trailer hitch, these Teapubbies have gone even bats*** crazier. Read this scarily accurate headline: Idaho Republican backs faith-healer parents: ‘If I want to let my child be with God, why is that wrong?’

The story is as follows: faith-healers’ kids die from neglect, and “Republicans” support them, and so want to ensure that deliberately causing one’s child to die is legal:

Legislation limiting a faith exemption for medical care in the state’s child neglect law was proposed after a string of preventable child deaths in Marsing among members of the Followers of Christ Church.

Perry said faith healers are caring parents who simply trust in God’s will.

“They are comforted by the fact that they know their child is in heaven,” Perry said. “If I want to let my child be with God, why is that wrong?”

Good God. This straw-for-brains “pro-life” Teabagger is even dumber than a wet sack of doorknobs.

The more so since she vehemently objects to letting a pregnant woman make the same choice BEFORE the child is born. Yep, Ms. Perry is rabidly anti-choice.

Got it, Gentle Reader? Everyone MUST be born whether their mother wishes it or not, and Repubs will make sure every pregnant woman is forced to give birth. But should a baby catch so much as a sniffle, one single minute after he or she emerges, it’ll be their parents’ “God-given” right to murder their child. Crazy.

Pro-life, my Cranky A**. Pre-born life matters far more to these “Christians” than post-born life. You can be jailed for having a miscarriage, but not for murdering your toddler.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Any Politician who Bases their Position on “Faith” needs Kicked out of Office.

We hear it all the time: no matter the issue, be it climate change, contraception, or even basic mathematics, far too many Politicos act as though their “faith” somehow equates to facts. Bull-f***ing-s***.

All the faith in the world does not make the Pill an abortion-inducing drug. It isn’t, and there is good science to prove that it isn’t. All the misapplied scriptural citations do not make climate change a hoax: again, science proves it isn’t.

And all the voodoo in America cannot make supply-side economics valid. It isn’t, wasn’t, and won’t be. All the data says it doesn’t f***ing work.

The Establishment Clause specifically rules out religion in our government. Period. So using “faith” as a policy tool isn’t just idiotic: it’s illegal.

So let’s make the penalty for the crime be de-election. Kick those fools out of their cushy jobs and let ’em try that faith scam in the real world once or twice. See how their “faith” is rewarded.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

(Note: Faith is a wonderful thing when used where appropriate. Church, for instance.)

Crazy Parents Kill Their SECOND Child With Faith Healing

Here is story of parents who have now killed two of their own children via “faith healing”. They prayed over 8-month-old Brandon instead of taking him to the doctor, and the poor little kid died.

They did this while being on probation after having done this before. Yes, they prayed another child right into the grave a few years back. They are now the murderers of two innocent children, but are not in jail.

Anybody else, anybody else, who had killed two children would be locked up. But not these two. Because why? Because God told them to do it, that’s why.

This is why we need a strong separation of church and state: so criminals can’t get away with murder by claiming a religious defense. If these two loons had been locked up for life after they killed their 2-year-old son Kent in 2009, they wouldn’t have been able to kill little Brandon last week.

It should make no difference if a parent (or anyone else) is high on Meth or high on Jesus: killing kids is killing kids.

Hopefully, this time, the “justice system” will live up to its name, and lock these two child-abusing scumbuckets up for a hundred years. Or maybe two: one for each of their victims.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Faith Must Be Used in its Proper Time and Place

If someone built a bridge of twigs and mud, and told you it was an Interstate Highway bridge, Mr. Blunt and Cranky hopes you would not drive over it; (if you would, he shan’t ride in a car with you). Oh, the person might ask you to “trust them”, to “have faith”, and urge you to drive over the bridge despite the obvious weakness. But no one possessed of even a moiety of their marbles would be fool enough to do so. Faith is a wonderful thing in its place, but one must not let it be used to enable folly or to cause harm.

A pity, then, that so many people put their faith in structures of similar weakness; theories of economics, political party affiliations, and the like. These are matters of propaganda, philosophy and convenience, but still subject to validation by evidence. And, regardless of what we might wish to believe, facts will have their way in the end, regardless of how earnestly we might wish otherwise.

Because Faith, by definition, is reserved for things that may not be proven or disproven: one can have (or not) faith in a God or Gods, for instance (as Mr. Blunt and Cranky does, stubborn old Presbyterian that he is). But how can have faith in something like a theory of economics, which can be proven right or wrong?

Things of the real world are solid, and not subject to alteration by our wishes, no matter how passionately we may believe them. Put another way, we are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs, but not to our own set of facts. Disagree? Then let’s see you walk through a solid granite wall, defy gravity, or overdraw your checking account. No matter the depth of your faith, you’ll wind up sorry and sore in the end.

When politicians ask us to “trust them” as they keep secrets from us, we are being asked to use faith in the wrong place: because their secrets will come out in the end, and their follies will hurt us and break our hearts. Politicians CAN give us information if we demand it. They are not suitable objects for our faith, and we do wrong when we give it to them.

As the parties build their flimsy structures and ask us to drive across them, we owe it to ourselves and each other to look upon them with clear eyes; yes, and to use our brains, too. Because if we all drive across their flimsy bridges based on mere faith, we and our fellows are quite likely to come to a very bad end.

Mr. B & C