Creepy and arrogant

"Nursing home evangelism: Preaching at the last ‘bus stop to eternity’" is very disturbing. If groups like Celebrate America were primarily concerned with providing our senior citizens with companionship I would applaud them without question but that isn't their focus. The very first sentence of the piece sets the tone quite nicely.
"Rhonda Rowe and her team gathered around a diagram of the nursing home’s floor plan and determined how to split up to avoid praying with anyone twice."
Assuming that the seniors being visited were interested in praying what difference would it make if someone prayed with them more than once? Clearly it is not about spending time with seniors who just might be lonely and wants some company. It really is about imposing a specific brand of Christianity on what amounts to a captured vulnerable audience. That is seriously fucking twisted. Even more revealing is that these assholes can't even be genuinely personal about it. Just a few sentences later we are told that: "Rowe knelt between them and went through her 'Nursing Home Gospel Soul-Winning Script.'" So this vultures are not just insincere in their goals they are equally disingenuous in their approach as well.

It also seems a tad bit arrogant. Why are they assuming that these senior citizens are in need of saving? Is there any reason to believe the residents of nursing homes are a particularly sinful bunch? Throughout most of the article it seems pretty clear that these nursing home evangelists understand that what the residents crave most is company. If they were really living up to the values they claim why not just visit and pay return visits. Wouldn't genuine companionship achieve the goals they profess to actually work better? Why not look into creating programs that foster interaction between seniors and the rest of the community?

But, no, compassion and companionship don't seem to be their real goals. These self-righteous vultures are simply looking to make themselves feel good while pushing their beliefs on others. If I actually believe in such nonsense I would have to assume these sick fucks are themselves headed for the very place they use to scare others.

Another piece of assumptions and biases

From start to finish the Atlantic's "Is Evangelical Morality Still Acceptable in America?" comes across as being rather superficial and idiotic. After reading through it a couple times I still fail see much of a point. Alan Noble does a pathetic job of defining or explaining what he really means by either "Evangelical Morality" or "Acceptable." Theists of all stripes whether Christian or specifically "evangelical" are free to worship any way they choose.

He never gets beyond any of the rather large assumptions he makes right from the start. Why he assumes that there can even be said to be an "evangelical morality" is beyond me. I am in no way implying that Christians of any type are automatically immoral. In fact, that is part of the problem with the whole piece. He writes as if there is something innately moral in theism and that each variation of theism somehow has produced its own unique moral structures. I don't buy it. Human beings are capable of being moral or immoral. Groups, though they can be influential, are not innately moral or immoral.

I also seem to have missed the part where being "acceptable" really matters to theistic claims and beliefs. Even if he ever got around to what defines being acceptable, which he doesn't do a very good job, what impact would it really have on evangelicals or any other group. Why the special treatment? Haven't there always been minority beliefs/groups? I'm unaware of there being an active campaign to marginalize or strip the rights of evangelicals. Assuming such a campaign could actually get anywhere given the power and influence evangelicals still wield.

The piece is just silly and ultimately pointless.

"Sharing faith" as a Euphemism

Religious conservatives can't seem to help themselves. They just keep demonstrating how ignorant, arrogant, and whiny they really are. A piece at Religious News Service talks about one of their latest gripes in a rather wishy-washy manner but it doesn't take much to see the complaints for the self-deluded martyr-wanna-be bullshit that it truly is.

The first paragraph reads,
"Christian conservatives have grown increasingly alarmed in recent weeks over reports and rumors that the Pentagon is considering new policies aimed at discriminating against Christians and disciplining or even court-martialing those who share their faith."

Problem is that what conservatives mean by "share their faith" is coercion. The second paragraph points out that, "The Department of Defense on Thursday (May 2) sought to debunk that speculation, saying that while aggressive proselytizing is barred, evangelization is still permitted and the rights of all believers – and non-believers – will be protected." It would be acceptable if this were accurate but unfortunately it is not. The military still has serious problems with Christian officers getting away with intimidating and cajoling the ranks into participating in various prostelytizing activities.

Basically, they are bitching that they are now being questioned about such intolerant and coercive behavior. On the occasions that they have been prevented from harassing non-Christians they immediately turn around and play the victim card. They are a bunch of hypocritical, deceitful assholes. Their blatant disregard for the Constitution and the basic foundation of our government should be grounds for their court-martials. They should not be armed. And they sure as hell shouldn't be viewed as defenders of our country!

Credulous Evangelicals

Huffington Post noted the results of a somewhat interesting but not particularly surprising survey of evangelical Christians regarding news sources. The evangelical denominations tend to be conservative so their preferred source of news being Fox was not shocking. Conservatives seem to favor the hyper-partisan factually challenged Fox News. There were  two aspects of this short post I found most interesting. The first was the question as to whether the failed election results prediction would lead evangelicals to choose a better source of news. They won't. Probing why they chose Fox and why they will most likely stick with Fox could be fascinating. The second was who the runner up to the most trusted news source ended up being. PBS came in at 31% compared to Fox's 47%. The discrepancy seems to small to be a reflection of the more liberal minded among evangelicals. If it was simply a matter of the liberal factions among the denominations picking the outlet perceived to be more liberal than you would expect PBS to be towards the bottom of all the listed media outlets. That would reflect the political leanings of evangelicals according to decades of similar polls and surveys. It seems mildly ironic that it is the second choice among a largely conservative grouping that tends to bash PBS.

This could be a reflection of the fine but observable line between political conservatives and religious conservatives. In any case, it would be interesting to see someone follow up on these results with a more in depth study of political, religious, and philosophical attitudes among this same group of evengelicals.

Monumental Crap

How is it that religious people end up being so clueless and gullible about matters they claim are so important? A recent post on CNN's Belief blog went on about how Kirk Cameron has recently emerged as a Christian activist. Really?! Apparently he's been so effective that most Christians were unaware that he has been the butt of jokes, rightly so, for over a decade. He has been Ray Comfort's (AKA the Banana Man) better looking sidekick since the early 2000's. The two of them founded The Way of the Master back in 2002.  If you want to laugh at some truly horrible cheesy bullshit check out their website.

Despite being around and routinely seeking to grab headlines with a variety of media aimed stunts* the Belief blog post was titled "With 'Monumental' Kirk Cameron emerges as Christian activist." Perhaps by "emerges" Marrapodi really meant "he's at it again." The only real difference between this and previous antics is that the media actually is paying a little more attention. I have no idea why, though. This project is no better than previous ones. However, about a third of the way into his fluff piece Marapodi reveals what is probably the most important detail about Cameron's Monumental film.

"The new documentary has faced criticism for its inclusion of self-taught evangelical Christian historian David Barton.

A favorite among evangelicals for his Christian-centric views of the Founding Fathers and his vast collection of historical documents, Barton is heavily featured in the film.

'The reason I went to go see David Barton is because he owns the largest collection of original source documents from the founding era that I can get my hands on and that you can go and see,' Cameron said.

'When you look at those documents it becomes incredibly clear there has been a lot of cherry picking of the evidence done to support a very particular worldview, and that’s the worldview our children are learning in school and it’s not the full and complete historical record because it doesn’t reflect the faith of our Founding Fathers,' the actor said."

If you are familiar with Cameron and Comfort it will come as no surprise that he gets things completely backwards. It is the religious right nuts who are doing the "cherry picking." The only way Barton could be seen as a "historian" is if repeatedly getting caught fabricating quotations and entire "sources" is a qualification (his most recent book is a prime example). That is the real reason Cameron went to him. There are no documents that support what he wants to claim. If he really wanted to get access to the real history of the US and a trove of documents that support that history a better place to visit would be the National Archive.

Basically, anyone who pays attention to the ongoing harmful dishonest antics of Religion would already be well aware of buffoons like Cameron. Unfortunately, idiots like him are as dangerous as they are amusing.
I always feel bad at how much I laugh whenever I watch the Comfort-Cameron Banana clip.


* He sort of attempted a debate with the Rational Response Squad in 2007 which in a heavily edited version appeared on Nightline. In 2009 he and Comfort handed out their own cut-and-paste edition of the On the Origin of the Species. They got far more laughs and jeers at the altered version of the book then they seemed to expect even in a country (sadly, I am talking about the US) that does not fully accept evolution. The pair also routinely release little videos meant to support their ministry.