Archives for posts with tag: religious beliefs

By beating him soundly, of course. Christian corporal punishment. Sound odd? Not at all. Ol’ Patty Robertson thinks beatings are blessings, you see:

In an email to the televangelist, a viewer named Karen explained that she did not want to attend a Christmas event because her Christian daughter “drank too much” and her grandson disagreed with her religious beliefs.

“We declined going to our daughter’s house on Christmas this year because there is always an argument, hard feelings etc.,” Karen wrote in an email. “One grandchild comes high on marijuana, cursing and challenging our faith. I correct him and have told my daughter to ask him to respect our beliefs, but he keeps it up.”

Robertson immediately recommended that the grandson should be taken “to the woodshed and let him understand the blessings of discipline.”

Got it, Gentle Reader? Pat Robertson wants to “bless” people by, quite literally, beating the Hell out of them. That being the case, surely some good Christian would be willing to likewise “bless” him in return? If beatings are truly Christian blessings, how could either party refuse?

In fact, this humble scribe would like to make an offer: in his past musical doings, mixtapes have been made for BDSM events. Such soundtracks would be made available for Mr. Robertson’s blessing-reception session at no charge. Indeed, a Dom or Dominatrix could be found as well, to administer such single-tailed sacraments to a fellow sinner (eat your hearts out, Opus Dei).

Let’s help Rev. Pat get all the blessings to which he is entitled. We can, in good conscience, do no less.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Michigan, a Blue state that stupidly elected a Red government, is learning just how stupid its voting choices were. The Michigan House of “Representatives” has passed a religious oppression “freedom” bill that pretty much gives the finger to our Constitutional rights as guaranteed by the Establishment Clause:

The Michigan House of Representatives, led by Speaker Jase Bolger (photo, above, left, with Gov. Rick Snyder,) just passed a bill that would allow discrimination to become sanctioned by the state. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, akin to one that made nationwide headlines in Arizona but was vetoed, appears to merely force the government to step aside if a person’s “deeply-held religious beliefs” mandate they act, or not act, in a certain manner.

Supporters of these bills claim they allow people of faith to exercise their religion without government interference, but in reality, they are trojan horses, allowing rampant discrimination under the guise of religious observance.

For example, under the Religious Freedom law, a pharmacist could refuse to fill a doctor’s prescription for birth control, or HIV medication. An emergency room physician or EMT could refuse service to a gay person in need of immediate treatment. A school teacher could refuse to mentor the children of a same-sex couple, and a DMV clerk could refuse to give a driver’s license to a person who is divorced. 

Fundagelicals who support such “religious freedom” laws claim that the Founders were all about having a theocracy, but that argument would wash a lot of hogs. The author of the First Amendment himself (Thomas Jefferson) said it himself, time and again:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.

And, of course, he was not alone:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 

That bit being written by one Mr. Ames, wih help from James Madison and others. Add in the Supremacy Clause, and you can see that what Michigan’s Teapublican government is attempting to do is not just unconstitutional, it’s extraconstitutional. Perhaps you could say “treasonous and seditious” instead. Or, how about “un-American and illegal as all Hell”?

This writer has occasional need to travel to the Thumb State, and would prefer not to be left to die by, say, a Nazarene physician from Michigan who doesn’t like Presbyterians and refused to work on me based on his religious objection. That would be allowed if the law in question were to be enacted.

People, here we have two reasons for the Separation of Church and State: the law itself, and what would happen if we did not have that law to protect us. It is time to run these Teapubbies out of office on an elctoral rail. And that soon.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky