SocraticGadfly: religious hypocrisy
Showing posts with label religious hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religious hypocrisy. Show all posts

February 07, 2025

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod President Matt Harrison is full of hypocritical crap

And yes, family and friends still in that denomination, President-for-Life of the LCMS Matthew Harrison, fresh off putting "lutefash" in a containment box without actually taking it out tot he dumpster, is full of crap — hypocritical crap — in his response to Trump surrogate and general nutter Michael Flynn.

Flynn, per that link, attacked Lutheran Immigration Refugee Services for getting large federal grants for ... uh, helping immigrants. That's even though the LCMS, unlike Rome, can't see its way to doing social justice while remaining theologically conservative.

Flynn, one of Elmo Musk's DOGE-y minions, is of course peddling twaddle. 

So is Matty in his response.

Here's the start of that hypocrisy. Matty says:

We don’t say much to or about the government.

Then goes on to talk extensively about the government indeed.

We have suffered formal legal action and much more as we have watched as DEI philosophy (formally rejected by our church body along with white supremacy) has pervaded nearly every aspect of government activity, even as the U.S. government has burgeoned beyond all ethical and rational propriety, in effect stealing the future from our children.

Talking about the size of government in general is talking about government in general. The "taxation is theft" that appears to be in the background of that last line is bigger bullshit, as it's Trump who has run up large parts of the federal budget deficit, Reagan who started it, and Dick Cheney in between who said "deficits don't matter."

Matty doubles down later, while claiming it's "just me, not the LCMS":

Let me just note (and this is NOT an official position of the LCMS): I’m personally pleased with DOGE. The federal government is bloated beyond all rational limits. It can’t fund its activities without accumulating debt. And it’s failing in its basic tasks.

Please.

First, Federal spending ticked up during COVID, yes, but since then, has returned to close to its historic 60-year norm. See the St. Louis Fed. St. Louis, where you are, Matty. Let's add that, in 1998-2001, we actually ran budget surpluses. Gee (with carryover to fiscal 2001) what party controlled the presidency then, Matt? Arguably, you're violating the Eighth Commandment (Lutheran-Catholic-Anglican-Orthodox numbering) by bearing false witness against a political party.

In fact, Trump himself, on Super Bowl Sunday, just blathered to Bret Baier about $36 trillion in national debt without admitting his first term, he was responsible for one-quarter of that

Matty also ignores that the Slickster, Bill Clinton, had a balanced budget at the end of his second term. (He didn't push for cutting military spending more, though.)

And again, this is talking about government.

And, because the devil supposedly loves a bible-quoting secularist, now would be the time for Romans 13, I believe:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment

There you are, Matt.

As Jesus said at the end of the tale of the Good Samaritan? Maybe you should "go and do likewise"? 

DEI? Most of it is a capitalist pile of junk. (See above about Rome and social justice, vis-a-vis at least excessive capitalism.) And, no, Matt, even if there is a god, he, she or it didn't invent capitalism. When done rightly, as Costco knows, it's good for business and its good ethics as well.

You didn't mention critical race theory, but I'll but you at least have personal, if not official, thoughts about it. Well, they would be wrong; of that I have no doubt. 

I can say that with confidence for two reasons. The first is that most White wingnuts blather about critical race theory without knowing what it is. The second is that I've read "Silent Covenants" by Derrick Bell, one of the developers of critical race theory, and thus DO know something about it directly, and found it informative and more good than bad.

Let's next do a gotcha call-out, Matt. You say at the end:

At the same time, a well-regulated border, sound immigration policy, and welcoming space for persecuted refugees are all fundamental parts of a God-pleasing answer to the question:

OK, what's your answer to the genocide in Gaza? I already know. Your denomination hasn't called it a genocide, AFAIK, and has basically ignored it and the countless refugees Israel has created. (The LCMS is fundamentalist in its own way, but not evangelical millennialists, so it has no reason to expect Israel to bring on Armageddon.)

For that matter, since we're talking primarily about Hispanics, and you ARE talking about the government, what's your personal — and denominational leadership — take on the United States' history of coups and other meddling in Latin America that destabilizes countries and creates refugees?

But, then let's get to the rhetorical question that follows.

Who will contribute to this marvelous and blessed American experiment?

THAT, my "dear sir," is clearly untheological. The "United States of America" is not in Christian scriptures, and to claim the "American experiment" is "blessed" as an implication that it is, and so is a theological lie. It's about as much a lie as the drivel from the Gun Nuts for Luther group which out of thin air implies there's a biblical, god-given right to gunz. It also is a violation of at least the spirit of the First Amendment you claim to love.

As for the German immigrants you say founded the LCMS?

It should also be noted that German-Americans broke harder for Trump than any other white ethnic group, apparently driven in fair part by their liking in 2016 his claims to breaking with the neoconservatives within the GOP and having a more isolationist stance in his "America First," and the LCMS' roots are primarily in German-Americans. 

Many of these people are "alt-white" types. And, let us note that Harrison is palling around with racists. And he knows this.

I said on my original piece about the Lutefash that Harrison was enough of a political chameleon to largely stay above the fray. To the degree he thinks it's too much heavy lifting, he'll ignore the underground network of pastors and congregations, of which I only scratched the surface in that initial piece.

That may or may not still be true. But, on secular politics, I guess he just can't help himself.

Beyond the above, Harrison has big financial fish to fry, namely the Hot Chalk lawsuit and others over the LCMS' abrupt closure a couple of years ago of Concordia University Portland. Harrison's mixing of secular politics and church governance was a factor in how the pooch was screwed in its closing, too, further showing what a hypocrite and liar he is. (Let's not even count the timing on Portland's close blocking easy student transfers that academic year.) So, too, was his eye on the dollar signs CUP was generating with Hot Chalk.

Add this to Matty's political chameleon behavior, too. The Boy Scouts of America a couple of years ago voted to accept gay Scouts, but not leaders. So, Harrison went down the Bill Clinton route of 30 years ago and saying it's "don't ask don't tell" on gay Scouts at troops affiliated with LCMS congregations, and beyond that, in a legal memorandum of understanding, individual congregations still have the right to boot Scout troops. And, contra Rev. Bart Day, no, sexuality was always an issue in the BSA, until it decided to do its split-the-difference bullshit, presumably on grounds that gay Scoutmasters would be "groomers." (This ignores the BSA's long history of tolerating sexual abuse by Scoutmasters, of course, with Harrison and his LCMS predecessors aiding and abetting that.)

==

Updates of various sorts:

First, in response to an old college friend on Facebook? It IS my business because, per that neocon Lutheran political pundit (and moderate ex-LCMS theologically), Richard John Neuhaus, Harrison is operating in the public square, per a famous Neuhaus phrase, and influencing members' political views in the process. So, Keith, if you or some other LCMS member want to vote Trump on bad political information, that's your choice. But, when the peddler of bad information is operating in the public square, calling them out is my choice.

Second, per the ex-Lutheran subreddit, Harrison is also lying about current LCMS membership levels. 

So, Matt Harrison is a serial liar.

==

I would say "Here I stand, I can do no other" as a bit of additional mocking, but of course (OF COURSE!) Luther never actually said that. It's just another part of 24-karat gilt Luther legend. FAR more of that legend is exposed here.

From that second link, this observation of mine:

The "yes I'm right" stance of Luther himself, not only vis-a-vis things where he clearly was, but other issues, such as versus the Reformed on the Eucharist, versus many Reformed and other Lutherans on the issue of adiophora and more, seems to still run strong in much of the conservative wing of Lutheranism. (Let's not forget that Luther thought he was competent to condemn Copernicus' heliocentric theory of the solar system, and rushed to do so when his book was published.)

Is quite pertinent to the situation at hand.

August 31, 2023

Texas Progressives talk this and that

Why is the Railroad Commission allowing a lignite mine to expand when, beside the climate change issues, local residents don't want that?

Former Fetus Forever Fuckward Jonathan Stickland shilling for Ken Paxton — on Steve Bannon's show.

Sarah Palin, trying desperately to stay semi-relevant in today's GOP and East Wingnutistan.

Trump continues to claim the mounting indictments help him. And, that may be true in the GOP primary cycle. In the general election, polling says they'll hurt, and assuming that trials for one or more of these start in the middle of the GOP primary season and continues at least through the end of that, let alone into the general election season, I have no doubt the hurt will increase.

Climate havens are getting touted in the US more and more. In reality, there really is no such thing, and, going beyond the story, touting them is like carbon offsets — a way to try to avoid facing reality.

Off the Kuff stays on the Paxton impeachment beat, with the reminder that the real thing starts September 5

From his second, religion and philosophy-focused blogsite, SocraticGadfly notes, months after having to excommunicate a neo-Nazi pastor, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod president Matthew Harrison now has one of Fani Willis' dirty 19 on his hands. And, in other bad religious news, the forged fake James Ossuary is coming to the Metroplex — for big grift and gilt.

Dos Centavos posts a Human Rights Watch report about their recent visit to the Texas Border.

ERCOT's continued conservation pleas show that Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick et al did NOT fix the power grid, just gouged our wallet to help rich utility companies. (It also shows that Californicators who moved to I-35 or east parts of Texas, with "not a dry heat," are wusses.)

Sweetwater is now becoming known for a trash pile of wind turbine blades (partially courtesy of the IRS, which also explains why all the older wind farms near Muenster were refitted a couple of years ago) as much as for its rattlesnake roundup.

For now, the state's takeover of Harris County elections stands.

"I'll take, 'Who's Will Hurd?' for $1,000, Alex."

Happy 80th birthday to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News!

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project says elected Democrats who have endorsed John Whitmire for Mayor must take steps to limit the damage to down-ballot muncipal Houston Democrats from Whitmire's need for strong Republican turnout.    

Franklin Strong cannot see how the Texas school library book "ratings" law can work.  

Jef Rouner reassesses a key scene from the 80s classic The Breakfast Club.  

The Bloggess presents her do-it-yourself horoscope.  

CultureMap breaks the news about Season Five of Love is Blind being set in Houston.

August 09, 2023

Texas Progressives talk Paxton, school safety, more

Off the Kuff has more Paxton impeachment news for you, as well as the news of his first day in court on those securities fraud charges from 2015. 

SocraticGadfly wonders how, if god can't stop school shootings, how will these guys (aka school campus religious counselors, going beyond "resource" officers and "guardians.")?

Dos Centavos reminds us that while COVID-19 is still here, so is long COVID, as the Biden administration opens up a research office to combat symptoms.

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project posted that Houston City Council At-Large 2 candidate Obes Nwabara has made protection of democracy a leading focus of his campaign. This is just what the Houston Democracy Project is asking candidates to do. 

Reform Austin looks at the next chapter for Mothers Against Greg Abbott. 

 The Current reads the latest report on "maternity deserts" in Texas. 

 Medha Palnati says that America's God complex is killing God's children at the border.

The Texas Signal gets into the conservative support for Democratic State Rep. Shawn Thierry.

In The Pink Texas talks about speaking softly.
 
What's missing from "Oppenheimer"? Actual New Mexicans of the time, and their stories, including the effects of bomb tests in-state (besides Trinity), the radiation and more.

August 01, 2023

If god can't or won't stop school shootings, Texas Lege, how will these guys?

One of both the dumbest AND most unconstitutional bills to come out of this year's Lege?

One permitting unlicensed chaplains to do counseling at public schools. That includes, per the header, trauma counseling after shootings or psychological counseling to find and help troubled kids and prevent them from becoming active shooters.

Per the latter half of that, again, note the word "unlicensed," as in psychologically unlicensed, and if setting themselves up as an independent, non-denominational pastor, not having even one class in pastoral counseling, possibly.

Per the story, state Rep. Cole Hefner (R-Tim Dunn) said that local school boards can set standards. But, wait a minute. Didn't the Lege also pass a bill this year further undermining local control? Didn't the Texas Supremes just rule that Strangeabbott had the legal authority to unilaterally override local mask mandates? Yes and yes.

First, this WILL be a Trojen's horse for evangelizing on campus. And, in schools with non-Christian students, that WILL include guilt-tripping them.

Second, since god can't or won't stop school shootings, what will these chaplains do?

December 24, 2022

Merry fucking Christmas to Robert Jeffress as he cavorts with Belial

The Dallas Observer is Dallas-Fort Worth's alt-weekly, part of the (Village) Voice Media group. Its Dec. 1-7 issue (just 24 pages at about a 50 percent adhole, not counting house) had a quarter-page ad from Robert Jeffress. Yes, THAT Robert Jeffress, wingnut Trump-schlonging pastor at Dallas First Baptist. Rexella Van Impe, wife of the late Jack Van Impe, and herself 90 years old, is also tied in.

At the same, Bob Jeffress, Rexella, and Jack Van Impe Ministries have to be just as desperate to advertise in an alt-weekly that also carries ads from all the major DFW titty bars.

Looking at the event being advertised, are the pair going to try to do a resurrection of Jack, or what? 

On the flip slide of that?

Meanwhile, let's go all biblical on Bob, from Paul himself in 2 Corinthians 6:

15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[a]? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?

Well, Bob? How do you explain to members of First Baptist when they see that you're trying to cavort with Belial?

Or maybe it's Beelzebul, per Mark 3:

And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

There you go. Robert Jeffress, Lord of the Flies. And Pimper of Trump.

August 14, 2020

Top blogging for July 2020

No. 1? My takedown of the hypocritical signers of the anti "cancel culture" Harper's letter, many of them guilty themselves of cancel culture.

No. 2? One from this spring, goosed to new life on Twitter because of John MacArthur's hypocrisy in California, as I called out Protestant megachurches and pastors for being sinful anti-Romans 13 rebels.

No. 3? An old one, still trending, and possibly with some hacker reverse-SEO bugging it, about whether or not a college can discriminate against a religious campus group.

No. 4? Another takedown, this one of Texas Monthly for believing "poor me" BS out of the mouth of a fracking oil company president.

No. 5? Got a theme going here. Another takedown, this one of Young Republicans PR masquerading as Black Lives Matter support in Gainesville, Texas.

No. 6? Thoughts on the bankruptcy and post-bankruptcy future of McClatchy Newspapers, about the best chain of larger dailies out there these days.

No. 7? Week 15 of coronavirus coverage with my renewed split in my installment of the Texas Progressives weekly roundup. (No. 10 was about Week 16.)

No. 8 was my not-so-fond advance farewell to one of John Wiley Price's biggest hacks foisted on Dallas County residents, elections administrator Toni Pippins-Poole.

No. 9? Going meta, it was my top June blogging.

August 09, 2020

New York Times "discovers" today's Religious Right,
wants news "consumers" to know its genius

"Christianity will have power"? Yes, it's a nice phrase, but ... was one line in one speech in Iowa enough to elevate the speech into Donald Trump's version of a Cornerstone Speech vis-a-vis his relationship to the Religious Right?

The New York Times would have you think so, and with throwing in some breathless marketing Tweets, further confirms why I wouldn't pay to subscribe.

First, two of those marketing Tweets and my responses:
Uhh, no. I don't "need" anyone.
There you are, Mr. NYT National Editor Marc Lacey.

Then this:
Sorry, but no translator needed, Ms. Deputy National Editor Yang.

Here you are:
And, since I posted a link to my original Tweet thread in that Tweet, I'll use it as the basic for finishing up this post.

First, per the header, yes, this is typical NYT bullshit, thinking it's discovered something new, when in reality it has not. Related to that is the quasi-bigfooting idea that if anybody else wrote about this in other media before, it didn't count because they weren't the NYT.

Second is the marketing of this geenyus to today's "consumers" (god I hate that word) of news. Trotting out two of your top editors to Tweet away shows that. It's also pretty heavy-handed. Laughably so.

First, before the Twitter thread, one more example of the NYT's alleged brilliance at being Captain Obvious? This:
The Trump era has revealed the complete fusion of evangelical Christianity and conservative politics, even as white evangelical Christianity continues to decline as a share of the national population.
In reality, with data research sites like Pew having written about this for three or four years straight now, the "Rise of the Nones" (which is a broader issue than just the decline of conservative evangelical Xianity, and blogged about me three years ago, as well as last year) is yesterday's news. As for the "complete fusion" issue? Forty years ago, the Religious Right backed for president a man who had expanded abortion access while governor of California, who never went to church and who consulted astrologers. (Ronnie turned Nancy on to that, not the other way around.)

Now, onto my original Twitter thread, with this blogpost being added to the end of it after being finished.

First:
See, that "bully" part is important. Per "The Rise of the Nones" issues, the Religious Right has been losing power for some time. Rather than sidle up to Hillary Clinton and her conservative DC prayer circle warrior background with The Fellowship, though, because she was pro-choice, and ignoring that Trump long had been so, they backed Trump.

The bullying? Bullying and shaming people into expression of religious belief in small town America, even in blue states (Galloway vs Town of Greece) was and still is a real thing. Remember, most members of the Religious Right hate atheists even more than gays, and may hate non-Christians, especially Mooslims, almost as much.

OK, next:
The hypocrisy? Detailed above with Ronnie and Nancy Reagan. The faux-martyrdom goes hand in hand, and parallels, to link back to the "Cornerstone Speech" 1861, the South's faux-martyrdom after Lincoln's election. Fortunately, the Religious Right isn't getting to totally write or rewrite the history of the last 50-60 years of American life as a new Lost Cause, though people like Dias may be helping.

Trump has played the faux-martyr role to a T since HUD sued him and his dad 50 years ago for racism in apartment renting. He knows how to play an audience like a cheap fiddle.

Next:
This is true in conservative Catholic circles as well, something ELSE Dias left on the table. (Per the old phrase "cafeteria Catholics," there are conservative cafeteria Catholics, on the death penalty and gun control, just like there are liberal cafeteria Catholics on reproductive choice.)

And last, one other thing Dias left on the table (well, there's yet more, but this covers the basics):
Remember, Trump's speech was in Iowa, January 2016, before the Iowa caucuses. On paper, Dominionist Ted Cruz and his Seven Mountains daddy were the ideal candidates for the Religious Right to back. So, why didn't they? (Pew notes that, in polling, the most devout among the evangelicals DID tilt Cruz, even though, overall, the Religious Right tilted Trump. Obvious deduction? Lots of these people may be sincere in their belief claims but don't go to church that often!)

And why didn't Dias ask any of the people she interviewed those questions, whether about who they backed in 2016's primary/caucus, or about how regular they were in their churchgoing?

And, National Editor and Deputy National Editor, why didn't her editor catch that?

Also missing? Some local and regional demographics.

Did you know that Sioux Center isn't THAT small? More than 7,000 people and growing quite nicely since 2000, per City-Data. Did you know that, including the college students who claim residency there, it's still better-off than the Iowa average? Did you know it's less than an hour from Sioux City, Iowa, population 80,000 and metro area 180,000, and a flat hour from Sioux Falls, South Dakota, population 185,000 and metro 265K?

And, looking back locally, the college has 1,400 students. So, what, 40 faculty? Even at a small religious college, they're not being paid total peanuts. The typical associate professor there probably makes 10K a year more than a teacher at the public school district with similar experience.

In other words, Sioux Center isn't the Idaho Panhandle or something.

Were I doing this as an Amazon book review? This would be like seeing a new book with five-star touts turning out to be three stars at best.

March 09, 2019

Trump signs Bibles? So did Dear Leader, others
It's still grotesquely chasing Mammon as I see it

Everybody and their grandmother mentioned in the Biblical genealogy of Two Corinithians has by now heard of Trump autographing Bibles for Alabama tornado victims.

This:


is yet another reason this leftist, contra Arlie Russell Hochschild and fellow librulz, doesn't do "listening tours."

And actually, Trump autographing bibles (did he sign the first page of "Two Corinthians"? did he get his "cracker" [of the many crackers there]?) is only half as vulgar and one quarter as irreligious as the people who asked him for the autographs.

And, it's not just "the left" calling Trump out, contra fellow travelers at Red State:
That said, if Obama also did it, even for MLK's family, it's still theologically grotesque in my corner of the world.

But, that's Merikan Xianity, especially Southern style, in my corner of the world.

And, if the "Mammon" of which Jesus warned includes fame as well as money, this secularist, looking from the outside, says it is un-christian. It's also halfway to being a success gospel.

And, as for you Trump train riders?  Matthew 7:6 is right here:
"Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine."
Aren't you glad secularists know the Bible better than you?

June 01, 2016

Baptists can't dance, except around the truth, at Baylor — #hypocrisy alert (updated-again)

So, Ken Starr is (apparently) the official fall guy for one known rape and multitudinous other sexual harassment issues of the Baylor football team. More here.

I say "apparently" because the U has yet to comment, and as this link notes, Chip Brown (who despite his attempt at perpetual youth, has failed), has gotten non-UT stuff wrong before. That said, this Tweet claims "multiple sources" have confirmed this. We'll see. Stand by for news! Meanwhile, if true ...

Update, May 25: And, that "apparently" rather than "fired" is the operative word. Per the Waco Trib, Baylor regents say Starr's still in place — but promise more info in the future.

The old Chipster has updated on Twitter:
However, Baylor regents are saying new info will come by the time of the next board meeting, which on June 3 would not be the end of this month but early next month.

And, living in Tejas, by my reading eyeballs, I'm personally familiar with Chip Brown getting stuff wrong before.

Update, May 26: The Chipster was WAY wrong. Baylor just canned Briles.

That said, let's pretend he's right ...

First, yes, the schadenfreude for Mr. Whitewater Voyeur is fun. You richly earned it, Ken.

That said, does anybody doubt that if Baylor's football Bears had played to a 6-6 mark last year, and that the shiny new stadium had empty seats, that football coach Art Briles would be taking a walk as well? Ditto for AD Ian McCaw.

Of course not, despite Baylor's silence.

A Baylor, of course, is not a State U., where this would be hypocritical enough. It's a religious institution.

That said, beyond the religious hypocrisy, firing Starr won't make this go away. Jasmin Hernandez' lawsuit, after all, is against the board of regents, Briles and McCaw. Starr wasn't named.

Of course, the board might be viewing Starr as its proxy, hence pushing him out.

In which case, Briles and McCaw should probably retain private, personal legal counsel ASAP.

Meanwhile, the Waco Tribune is apparently asleep at the wheel. As of the time of this blog post, 1 p.m. May 24, it had NOTHING on its website. Bupkis. Not even writing about rumors, reports or university no-comments. (This has obviously now changed.)

Why June 3?

Survey says the regents and Starr are negotiating the price of a buyout, which would then have to be approved at the next meeting.

That said, per this Waco Trib piece, Starr has done good at Baylor, outside the athletic department issue. And, any going away, or kick upstairs, if it happens, may not be done without threats of him wielding a shiv in retaliation. (That whole piece is worth a read.)

And, per all of the above, with the Briles firing, Starr may just stay in place. Two Tweets sum up:
And
So maybe the schadenfreude should be put on hold.

Or NOT. Starr is also fired, as president; he may be retained as chancellor, but that's not a done deal. AD McCaw on probation.

I don't get why Baylor regents would even consider keeping Starr on as chancellor.

With one caveat.

Maybe he threatened to sue, and this is the "peace offering."

If not, then this is not so much hypocrisy alert as stupidity alert territory.

Update, May 30: Now that the team has an interim head coach, and one not named Phil Bennett, McCaw is now stepping down. Sounds pretty chickenshit to me, that he doesn't want to do the hard work of implementing the Hamilton Pepper report's recommendations.

Update, June 1: Whether chickenshit or whatever, Starr is following McCaw out the door, resigning the chancellorship, too. And ESPN goes Dan Rather with "Kenneth Starr" in its interview.

Update, June 2: Art Briles speaks, and throws Baylor under the bus, claiming Pepper Hamilton report is "not independent," as in "they were out to get me," I guess.

September 03, 2015

Quoting the Bible against Kim Davis (and the Religious Right in general)

Kim Davis, selective bible-quoting hypocrite
(Update, Sept. 3: U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning has — very rightfully, in my opinion, contra Kentucky same-sex marriage plaintiffs — sent Davis to jail, rather than just fine her, for continuing to remain in contempt of court. He said her organized supporters would simply pay her fines.)

It's actually like shooting fish in a barrel, but, like most such cases, it's with a fish that refuses to admit it's been shot.

Nonetheless, let's get started with the Rowan County, Kentucky clerk who's going one better than George Wallace on segregation and refusing to issue gay or lesbian marriage licenses.

It's called Romans 13. The first two verses say:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 
The governing authorities above Kim Davis in this case are the variety of federal judges that have told her she's wrong, and unconstitutional; ultimately, this is the Supreme Court.

Oh, while we're at it, for good measure, three verses later, Paul reminds the Religious Right to pay its taxes:
Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
Again, though, you won't see the Religious Right quoting this.

Let's also, with the four-times married Davis, remember Jesus on divorce in Mark 10:

Later, in the house, his followers asked Jesus again about the question of divorce. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman is guilty of adultery against her. And the woman who divorces her husband and marries another man is also guilty of adultery.”
Update: Contra one more interesting attempt (Google "David Instone-Brewer" plus "divorce" or similar for much more) to interpret Jesus away, no, he didn't appear to be "softening" this. Rather, he was taking at least as hard a line as Shammai in the Shammai vs. Hillel, conservative vs. liberal schools of Torah at roughly his time. I've seen hints this was about Jesus as proto-feminist protecting the rights of women, but, although that would have been a result, that's not clear. And, contra Q's authorial softening, Jesus doesn't make an allowance for desertion, let alone the "burnt food" idea. Therefore, if he was trying to protect women, it was pretty strange protection.

And, an argument from "space available" or "cost of papyrus" is just a fancier version of the old "argument from silence." Please, Mr. I-B.

A multiple adulteress judging people who want to be married. Per the WaPost link, a pastor at another church says those three divorces were before she got "saved."

First, the Revvvvvv. Smith (to riff on Rush Limbaugh and Jesse Jackson) has no idea if Davis thought she was "saved" during the time of any of her previous marriages, or previous divorces, as far as I know.

Second, of course, that's still trying to impose her (and the Revvvvvvv. Smith's) beliefs on a secular situation. And, given that Smith was active in Promise Keepers more than a decade ago, this isn't new ground for him.

Third, I can quote the Bible on THAT, too! Namely, the first two verses of Romans 6. Here you are, Revvvvvv Smith.

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may abound? By no means! 
After all, if I take the Revvvvv. Smith at his word, Davis ought to fool around with a fifth would-be husband while actually getting impregnated by a sixth. That way, she'd have another chance to be saved and forgiven so that "grace would abound." (That happened in he first marriage, per this site. She got preggers by eventual hubby No. 3, while married to No. 1 and fooling around with eventual No. 2. Speaking of, she had an opportunity to learn about "grace" and "forgiveness" from eventual No. 2, but didn't then, it appears.)

Meanwhile, her legal mouthpieces, per that just-linked site, are trying to make her the Onward Christian Soldiers version of a conscientious objector.

This all said, most religious fundamentalism is selective in its fundamentals and interpretation thereof. Christian fundamentalism is especially so, above all in relation to the Old Testament/Jewish Tanakh.

Plenty of Christian fundamentalists wear mixed cotton/wool suits, or mixed cotton/polyester clothes, in contravention of the "Old Testament." Plenty of others eat pork and shellfish. They usually claim that's part of the "Ceremonial Law," not the "Moral Law," or at least my Lutheran forbearers did.

That ignores, of course, that the Old Testament makes no such separation. And that Jesus, in saying he had come to fulfill the law, made no such separation either. (I never asked any of my professors during my last, "conversion" year of seminary for a proof text about dividing the commandments, the divarim, of the Torah/Pentateuch into "Moral Law," "Ceremonial Law" and "Civic Law," a nice, threefold, "Trinitarian" division. Nor did I cite Jesus' words about "I have come to fulfill the Law" as an indicator that such divisions didn't exist, and didn't matter if they did.)

Speaking of ...


March 05, 2014

Bernie Miklasz boo-hoos for nonexistent #CardinalWay

Can't you just feel the Cardinal Way?
Does it smell like St. Louis teen spirit?/AP photo
I am officially calling bullshite on St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bernie Miklasz, and for something besides running flak for Mark McGwire on andro, vs. an AP reporter, in 1998, the Year of Magic Year of Tainted Dreams.

His nonsensery? A column that, in addition to being 2x too long, invokes the mystical Cardinal way in pleading, begging, imploring with tear-stained peepers, for Ozzie Smith and his managerial arch-nemesis, Tony La Russa, to kiss and make up.

Yes, because a feud like that goes against "the Cardinal way." No, really. Read:
The last thing any Cardinals' greats should do is feud; that dishonors what they're representing. That isn't the so-called Cardinal Way. Why should other Cardinals Hall of Famers be made uncomfortable when the old gang gets together just because two guys can't settle some dusty dispute that's 18 years old and inconsequential to their current stations in life? These iconic men should be smiling and happy and proud to stand together as one.

Oh, and then, there's this bit of saccharine on top:
Mr. La Russa ... Mr. Smith ... can we end this?

Can we please have peace in our lifetimes?

Or as Stan "The Man" Musial might put it: Whaddaya say, whaddaya say?
Wow. Invoking St. Stan Musial. I'm just about to cry a freaking storm. If I were diabetic, I'd be in a coma by now.

Yeah, a manager who deliberately stacked the deck from spring training on, against Ozzie and in favor of Royce Clayton, and showed zero clue or sensitivity beyond that about how to handle the retirement year of a Hall of Famer who was, despite an injured 1995, in at least as good of walkoff-year health as Derek Jeter this year, should have Ozzie just give him a big hug and a smooch.

Even worse, Bernie has now doubled down on the stupidity, in a new column:
Tony La Russa boxed himself in back in 1996, when he announced that Ozzie Smith and Royce Clayton would compete for the starting job at shortstop during spring camp. The Cardinals obviously acquired Clayton from the Giants with the plan to use him extensively, but didn't want to be insensitive to Ozzie before the players reported to Florida. The proud Ozzie had other ideas and outplayed Clayton during the spring games. That put La Russa in a real bind. 

So the starting job went to Ozzie, right? Uh, no. Clayton had 531 plate appearances in 1996; Ozzie had 261. I thought it worked out fine, because La Russa and the Cardinals received good play from both shortstops. Clayton ranked among the NL's best shortstops in zone rating. And in his final season Ozzie stayed fresh and vibrant as an occasional starter.

But TLR's allocation of playing time at SS became a prominent side issue that never went away in '96. It was a sore point for Smith and many fans.
Er, this is a selective reading. In reality, when weighted per at bats, Ozzie was better on defensive runs, and about even on offensive runs per the shortstop position. B-R ranks him higher on both WAR and WAA; in fact, Clayton gets a negative. And Fangraphs agrees. There, on net run production, Ozzie's 5 runs ahead of Royce for that year, with half as many at bats.

So, "whaddaya say"? I say that TLR was definitely more in the wrong, and has never fessed up.

Beyond that, as his fellow P-D columnist, Bill McClellan, recently pointed out, and blogged about  by me here, TLR isn't exactly the "Cardinal way" guy anyway. His Cooperstown plaque will have no team logo. He never lived in St. Louis in offseasons or spent significant time there.

Per that link, in an email exchange, Bill referenced Andy Van Slyke, too, speaking of players feuding with TLR. I forgot about the history between him and TLR, over LaRussa's knowledge of Big Mac's roiding. (Oh, a good sabermetric based piece here about how Mac showed TLR should have known.) That wasn't the only tangle they had, though. But, that tangle alone, plus Bernie acting like a 1950s sportswriter in carrying Big Mac's bags, probably is more illustration


The Busch Stadium mound, baptized and exorcised by Waino
And, speaking of McClellan, and Stan Musial, and "whaddaya say," Bernie, why don't you ask if Adam Wainwright and other Cardinal pitchers are going to draw Christian fish symbols on the mound again this year? Since it's been a year-plus since Musial's death, they and Mike Matheny can't claim it's a "6" any more.

Beyond that, it's bullshite like this that make fans of many other teams barf when they hear "the Cardinal way," anyway. So, please, fellow Cardinal-loving bloggers, stop? Bernie Miklasz's column explains to a T why you should stop this. It's arguably more true than the Dallas Cowboys calling themselves "America's Team, but that's about it.

I mean, I lived in St. Louis for two different stretches of my life, my last two years of high school plus first couple of college summers, and a half-decade later, three years of grad school plus a year afterward. Loved the city. Still would like to live there, even at the price of figuring out ways to dodge relatives on religious holidays, speaking of the baptized Cardinals' mound.

(More here on the images, along with additional images. More here on the strongly Christian and clubhouse character background I'm not sure the team ever owned up to who was doing this. They did eventually remove them, which prompted national wingnut talking heads to spout off.)

Related to this, I'm also calling bullshite on any Cardinal blogger who again talks about how TLR had a preference for veterans. Ozzie's final year was just as good as Clayton's 1996, no matter how much TLR tried to stack the deck. Both B-R and Fangraphs say so.

Speaking of Fangraphs, a page linked there shows that the Wiz could do it in the field on grass as well as Astroturf. 

This, between the sheer stupidity and wrongness, and 400 wasted, overblown words, may be the single worst column Miklasz has written since coming to St. Louis 20-some years ago. 

Finally, I'll freely admit to bias on this issue. Said bias includes a sports P1 pic of the Wiz, from a pre-Miklasz P-D, diving into the hole for a patented stop, with Ozzie's autograph perfectly placed on top. I've never met the gentleman (which I perceive him as being), and I'm not saying he's guiltless. But, unless one wants to go past Bernie into Buddhist/hippie/New Ager/Obama Kumbaya land, one person needs to stick his hand out first.

And it ain't Ozzie Smith.

Note for Yankee manager Joe Girardi: If you want a good example of how to handle Jeter's final year, look at Tony La Russa, 1996 model, and do exactly the opposite.

(Update, Feb. 25: Bernie, if you're really worried about the "Cardinal Way," you need to keep an eye on Carlos Martinez, obviously [NSFW].) 

Or, read your office mate Bill McClellan, who politely says STFU about the "Cardinal Way." Re Martinez, he notes:
There is no “i” in team, but there is definitely an “i” in Twitter.
 Got it.

And, NOT gonna "get it" — the Cardinal Way is in book form

Seriously, Miklasz at times is starting to sound like one of those 1950s sportswriters who always traveled with the team, often drank with the team and sometimes wenched with the team. Bernie, I'll venture that Mozeliak has a PR position available, or can create one.

Otherwise, Bernie, you can write better than this. You have many a time, before.

If I want to up the facetiousness level, was Garry Templeton flipping off the fans the Cardinal Way? Keith Hernandez snorting coke in the Cardinal dugout? Rumors of players cheating on other players' wives in the 1980s? David Freese and his DWI problems? Not to mention other Cardinal DWI problems, like Tony himself, passed out at the wheel.

February 10, 2013

Snooty hypocrisy from Hobby Lobby; are AIDS and gays next?

The claim of its CEO, David Green, that "we run our business on Christian principles," in fighting Obamacare is hypocrisy of a high order.

Green is insinuating that opposition to contraception is a Christian principle. Even more so when combined with opposition to abortion AND opposition to welfare, which I presume he also opposes.

Apparently, he expects women to keep their legs crossed, judging by his company officially being tasked to put stickers over the boobs of Botticelli Venus pix in catalogues. (Somebody should sue him over that.)

No, this isn't about "Christian principles," it's about the principles of one subset of Christians. Imagine if  Southern Christians had trotted that out after Jan. 31, 1865.

"Nope, the Bible doesn't talk about getting rid of slavery, and we support it, so it's a Christian principle."

And therefore, contra Bill Keller, I feel no sympathy for Green's "moral dilemma."

Rather, I feel outrage at his attempt to impose moral diktats.

Besides, Obama doesn't let me opt out of paying taxes because I think his drone wars are morally wrong as well as unconstitutional.

Further proof that Green's Christian principles are selective is right here:
“If an employer can craft a benefits system around his religious beliefs, that’s a slippery slope,” said Marci Hamilton, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and a critic of religious exemptions. “Can you deny treatment of AIDS victims because your religion disapproves of homosexuals? What if your for-profit employer is a Jehovah’s Witness, who doesn’t believe in blood transfusions?”
Not to note that giving in to him would be to open a whole bag of worms.

And, with that AIDS and gays angle ... yeah, surprised that one's not already been raised.

Given that there is no official "Christian principle" on contraception, for Obama to give in further would violate the First Amendment, rather than him holding his ground.

And, keep up the $1 million a day fines; if Green wants to bankrupt Hobby Lobby over his attempt to impose his minority Christian views on the country's health care needs, bankrupt him.

Of course, given that this is the stance of the man Dear Leader asked to deliver the invocation at his first inauguration:
But Laycock’s is a lonely voice among advocates of religious exemptions. More typical is Rick Warren, the evangelical megachurch pastor, who says the battle to preserve religious liberty “in all areas of life” may be “the civil rights movement of this decade.” Warren goes on to say — I am not making this up — that “Hobby Lobby’s courageous stand, in the face of enormous pressure and fines,” is the equivalent of the Birmingham bus boycott.
Obama may cave like a cheap pack of cards.

February 03, 2013

Some Ray Lewis jokes you'll get a bang from!

Ahh, Ray Lewis, the plea-bargaining, likely murder-accomplicing, paying fines to families in spite of his "innocence," convenient god-finding middle linebacker of the Baltimore Ravens, is retiring from the NFL a two-time Super Bowl winner.

And, making me barf with spreading the god schtick thick on the interview stand.

So, Ray, .... firing back ... !

Ray Lewis, your Baltimore Ravens have won the Super Bowl. Are you going to Disney World? No, I'm going to shoot up the town?

Ray Lewis, are you glad to have gone out with a bang?

 Ray, was that a killer of a finish for your game and career?

Jared Diamond wrote "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Ray Lewis' new bio will be "Guns, God and Shots."

Did you hear about the new State Farm commercial? "Your Glock is in good hands with Ray Lewis."

And, I guess we should be glad that his mouth is the only thing Ray Lewis is shooting off, eh? (That said, we're well past worrying about him shooting himself in the foot?)

===

More seriously, Mr. Ray Lewis, was your alleged god "good" a decade ago when two friends of yours, in all likelihood, killed two people and you later obstructed justice to such an extent that nobody was ever convicted? You're a hypocrite, but you're not alone. You're just a more extreme version of others, and not just athletes, who have selective perception about the alleged goodness, and alleged interventions into life, of your alleged deity.

Female pastors, Applebee's and hypocrisy

I didn't realize now that the "pastor" at the center of the Applebee's brouhaha was a woman. It's a shitload of hypocrisy to talk about tithing to god in order to not tip a waitress the Applebee's-suggested 10 percent, while ignoring what Paul, or rather "Paul," says about women and positions of authority and instead becoming a pastor in the first place.

The actual Paul (I don't believe this is a pseudepigraphal addition) says this in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
He is followed by a pseudo-Paul in 1 Timothy 2:11-12:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
And, that's the bottom line. Period.

So, women pastors, if you're going to try to cite the literality of tithing, or whatever, but ignore the literality of Paul and pseudo-Paul, you're a big fucking hypocrite.

Related to that, since the Revvvvvvvvvvv. (picture Rush Limbaugh voice) Alois Bell then came on St. Louis' Faux News station? You Faux talking heads, especially if you're women yourselves, if you're going to support a woman pastor, if you're going to interview a woman pastor, and yet claim to support religiously conservative values, you're big fucking hypocrites.

And, to be more blunt yet, as I expected when I saw the location of the Applebee's, to imitate Rush again, because it now becomes more appropriate yet in a twisted way, the Revvvvvvvv. Bell is an African-American. And, black churches, especially ones of the storefront variety that claim to be conservatively Christian, are especially bad about having women ministers.

Of course, the link above shows that there's a whole shitload of hypocrisy to go around.

Applebee's, who has violated the privacy of previous guests itself, now gets all apologetic to the "Revvvvvv." Bell.

Applebee's which has had various franchisees talk about making more employees PT in order to avoid Obamacare provisions, is a big fucking hypocrite for not telling the Revvvvvvvvvv. to pay 18 percent for that reason alone.

It's also incredibly stupid, as the link shows.

Back to the main area of hypocrisy, though.

Women pastors at conservative Christian churches pull shit like this all the time, and with a straight face. Too often, liberals will call them out for bad ethics or morals, but not for their religious hypocrisy. And, that needs to happen. Because they are hypocrites. Big fucking hypocrites.

Meanwhile, back to Rush. Will he and his ilk defend a black woman for the sake of defending a big business against a black man, our president? That pilodinal cyst has to be squirming in his chair, at the idea of defending a black woman to defend big biz.

And, beyond the biblical hypocrisy, I think a lot of these low-rent independent black (or Hispanic) churches are about as predatory, especially when they preach a lot of "success gospel," as are the Applebee's of the world. And, speaking of predatory practices, we know a lot of the banksters, at local offices, deliberately approached pastors, both male and female, of churches like this to get them to peddle subprime mortgage crap to their members, with nice "tip money" (heh, heh) for so doing.

That "I tithe" comment on the receipt?  The Revvvvvvvv. Bell needs her members to keep putting their Rolexes, or WalMart knockoffs, credit cards, etc., in the offering plate to tithe.

If you're a woman pastor at a liberal Protestant church, I won't ding you for hypocrisy. You had still better watch out what you claim is literally true in the bible, though; I'll ding you on standard atheist grounds.

January 20, 2013

Dennett has new thoughts,still won't reject computational theory of mind

Dan Dennett/Edge magazine photo
Philosopher Dan Dennett has a very interesting interview in Edge.

Key takeaway? He junks a fair amount of what he's said in the past about the details of how the mind/brain is like a computer, 

BUT!

Still holds fast to the analogy that it's ... like a computer! Even though he admits that the details of this comparison or analogy simply are weak to nonexistent.

Let's look at some comments:
We're beginning to come to grips with the idea that your brain is not this well-organized hierarchical control system where everything is in order, a very dramatic vision of bureaucracy. In fact, it's much more like anarchy with some elements of democracy.  ...

The vision of the brain as a computer, which I still champion, is changing so fast. The brain's a computer, but it's so different from any computer that you're used to. It's not like your desktop or your laptop at all, and it's not like your iPhone except in some ways. ...

Control is the real key, and you begin to realize that control in brains is very different from control in computers. Control in your commercial computer is very much a carefully designed top-down thing.  I mean, with all that, there's no need to hang on to his analogy.  
I guess he simply can't admit it's a crappy analogy that just doesn't work, and walk away from it.

Because it was a crappy analogy a decade ago,. and it's in tatters now. (Ditto for his claim that evolution is algorithmic.) It's nonsensical. Yes, Dan Dennett, it's nonsensical. How can you analogize to something that nobody is used to? Especially since what we understand as a "computer" may never be like that?

That said, per the sentence in parentheses, I suspect it's all about the algorithms. He still wants to believe the human mind, like evolution by natural selection, is algorithmic. And, he's not even wrong, per Wolfgang Pauli.

This is also an example where Dennett should look in the mirror any time he uses the phrase "greedy reductionist."

That said, it's not all hubris in the interview. Dennett admits his new ideas (and it's nice to hear him have some) are speculative enough he'd "be thrilled if they're 20 percent right." And, his comments about brain plasticity, findings that maternal and paternal  inheritance genes in our cells may "war" much more than previously thought, are refreshing. 

At the same time, there IS hubris in other ways. His admissions of plasticity in the brain, combined with the "20 percent correct," should lead him to say that cognitive science, and related things such as artificial intelligence, may have advanced from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age in the last decade, but that's where they are and no further.'

Also unfortunately, his new ideas don't appear to extend to free will.

At the same time, though, the last section, about hypocrites in the pulpit, is great.

He's not talking about moral hypcrites, but unbelieving hypocrites in conservative Christian denominations. This is a follow-up to surveys and other work he and others have recently done.

Here's a sample:
How do they thread the needle so that they don't offend the sophisticates in their congregation by insisting on the literal truth of the book of Genesis, let's say, while still not scaring, betraying, pulling the rug out from under the more naïve and literal-minded of their parishioners? There's no good solution to that problem as far as we can see, since they have this unspoken rule that they should not upset, undo, subvert the faith of anybody in the church.
This means that there's a sort of enforced hypocrisy where the pastors speak from the pulpit quite literally, and if you weren't listening very carefully, you’d think: oh my gosh, this person really believes all this stuff. But they're putting in just enough hints for the sophisticates in the congregation so that the sophisticates are supposed to understand: Oh, no. This is all just symbolic. This is all just metaphorical. And that's the way they want it, but of course, they could never admit it. You couldn't put a little neon sign up over the pulpit that says, "Just metaphor, folks, just metaphor." It would destroy the whole thing. 
From personal experience with my own "coming out," I know how true this is. I also know that many agnostics or atheists in the pulpit have become wedded to the money. If you're the pastor, or senior pastor, of a decent-sized church in a mainline Protestant denomination, your total salary and benefits can easily be, say, 35-65 percent greater than that of a school teacher with comparative experience.

I just couldn't do that. And so, I'm schlepping on community newspaper editor salary, in a profession struggling even more than mainline Christianity. But, struggle it is; it's not just Catholic parishes going without priests, etc.

Anyway, that's good stuff to end on. Go read it.