The Rev and E. R. Rudolph--Self-Appointed Archangel and Killer for Their Baby-Killer God

Well folks, it's been a few days since the Rev doomed me to Hell, and still no response back to my request for a debate. I know that Michelle is probably right and such a debate will never happen, so I figure that I will explain some of the allusions I made in my invitation to Mr. Spitz.

NOTE:

In this post I give links to Don Spitz's website as a form of citation for my statements and assertions. Some of these links will immediately expose you to genuinely horrific photos of mutilated human fetuses. I cannot emphasize enough how horrific these photos are. The inclusion of these photos on the Rev's site is a standard, and extremely distasteful part of the tactics employed by Don Spitz and his followers during the abortion debates of the late 90's.

While I somewhat agree with the position that use of such graphic imagery is protected under the First Amendment, I do not agree that such imagery should be used in public or without warning--it is no different than pornography, and should be regulated as such.

Further more, nothing I say in the following REQUIRES the reader to follow the links; I will give all necessary information and quotes here. I only add the links, because I was taught to always cite my sources, and as a way to prove to detractors that I am not making this shit up.

Thank you--now on to my Rant.

In the post that caught the Rev's attention, and in my reply post to the Rev, I alluded to fundamentalist Christian terrorists and/or the Rev's support of these pieces of human filth. The reference that generated Rev's interest and comments was a man by the name of Eric Robert Rudolph.

Rudolph was engaged in a series of bombings in the American South during the late 1990's that killed three people, and injured 150 others. His "targets" were abortion clinics, a lesbian nightclub, and the Atlanta Olympics. Rudolph's reasoning for these attacks was to stop abortion, the "gay agenda", and to strike at the federal government which, he said supported these things.

Rudolph was put on the FBI's Most Wanted list in 1998, and captured without a fight five years later outside Murphy, North Carolina while digging through garbage cans for food.

Following his capture, Rudolph entered into a plea agreement to avoid the death penalty, and now resides in an 80 square foot concrete cell at the ADX Florence supermax federal prison in Colorado.

I well remember Rudolph's terrorist acts, and his capture. At the time of his capture I was living in Asheville, North Carolina which is just a couple of hours, by mountain roads, from Murphy. Rudolph's capture was front page news for sometime, as was the continuing investigation into people in and around Murphy who helped Rudolph during his time as a fugitive (He was clean shaven and was wearing new shoes when he was caught.) Many wackos in the area around Murphy were vocal supporters of Rudolph, and saw him as a hero. Rudolph's brother videotaped himself cutting his own hand off with a power-saw as a sign of support for his sibling--talk about a screwed up family. The hand was successfully reattached by doctors with scientific medical training, and not by a faith healer.

What does Rudolph have to do with Don Spitz? Well, the Rev was, and still is, Rudolph's most vocal supporter. The Rev's website (SEE WARNING ABOVE) lists Rudolph, along with other murderers, among those whom he calls "Heroes of the Faith," and "Prisoners of Christ." (I know---The last title seems stupid, because Christ is obviously not running federal prisons, but it's the Rev's title not mine.)

Rev's support of Rudolph is based on a number of principles:

1)- Abortion is a sin in God's eyes.
2)- The killing of anyone associated with abortion is sanctioned by God.
3)- The killing of someone who performs, or allows to be performed, an abortion is no different than killing a person who is about to murder a child. And anybody would say it was OK to kill someone who is about to shoot an innocent child.

Obviously this reasoning is stupid in the eyes of any sane person, and society in general, but the Rev, and his kind, feel that they are immune from society's rules if these rules are superseded by God's. So, let's pretend that God's rules apply. If this were the case, then Rudolph is bound for Hell, and so is the Rev for supporting him. If Rev actually read the book he is so fond of thumping he would know this.

First principle--Abortion is a sin--Is it? No.

Unlike the word kill (as in 'Thou shalt not kill'), the word abortion is no where in the Bible, so for anyone who is mandated to only follow rules from the Bible, making rules concerning abortion would be in violation of their own code.

However, there is one instance of law in the Bible that could be construed to pertain to abortion:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."

Exodus--21:22-25
(All Biblical references contained in this post are from the King James Version of the Bible. I do this because most fundamentalists don't accept the authority of other translations, and because it reminds me of Shakespeare)

(This whole chapter of Exodus is basically a statement of laws among which are killing a murderous ox, and letting a slave go free if you put out his eye)

In plain English, this law states that if you do something to a pregnant woman that causes her to miscarry (spontaneously abort a fetus), but don't do anything else that harms her, then you are to be judged by men: especially the woman's husband. But if following the miscarriage you do her further harm you are to suffer the same harm you caused--cut her: you get cut, cause her to lose an arm: your arm comes off, kill her: you die.

Obviously, the condition of the fetus is not the issue--God doesn't care about the fetus, only the woman. This is likely based on the premise that a person is not a person until he/she has been born as shown numerous times in the Bible; such as when God created Adam and:

"breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Genesis--2:7

So, killing a fetus is not a sin, because people are not "living souls" until birth. And, any perceived problems with the well-being of the mother are not the fault of anyone around the man who caused the abortion: only the man. Plus there is no mention of a woman being in trouble for abortion, or miscarriage, so she's not sinning. And, the punishment applies only to MEN, so a female doctor has no possible problems at all with being a sinner. Before anyone claims than MEN means mankind, you should first read your Bible. God uses the word man sometimes to mean men and women, but never the word men. When he says "men," he means adult male humans.

But, killing a woman (without cause) is definitely a sin.

Spitz-principle #2--The killing of anyone associated with abortion is sanctioned by God.

Well, aside from what I have shown above about abortion not being sin, and only the actual man doing harm being punished, there is the matter of the people Rudolph actually killed: an off-duty police officer, a nurse, and an innocent bystander.

The nurse worked at an abortion clinic, in Birmingham, and the officer was moonlighting as night security at the same clinic. Rudolph and Spitz claim that under the association clause of their principles these were killings sanctioned by God, which I have already shown would not be the case.

The first of Rudolph's victims was a woman who was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and was killed by Rudolph's Olympic Park bombing during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. This woman was not gay, was not an agent of the federal government, and had neither performed nor had an abortion nor worked at an abortion clinic. She was simply a parent enjoying the Olympics with her son.

Eric Rudolph murdered a completely innocent woman without cause, and is therefore guilty of murder in the eyes of God and is to be put to death. By giving Rudolph the sanction of God in this murder, Rev. Spitz is blaspheming, lying, and putting words into God's mouth falsely. Any one of these actions is, according to Spitz's Bible, punishable by death. So, who's going to Hell now Rev?

Then there's the last principle-- The killing of someone who performs, or allows to be performed, an abortion is no different than killing a person who is about to murder a child. And anybody would say it was OK to kill someone who is about to shoot an innocent child.

Well we have already seen that the first part of this is wrong. However, I will agree with the justification for killing someone about to kill an innocent child. This brings up a rather interesting conundrum for Spitz, his supporters, and his followers, as well as most Bible thumpers, because, if the Bible is true, God is the biggest killer of innocent children in recorded history.

Through direct action by, or upon instruction from God an untold number of innocent children were killed when the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed; Every innocent child on the planet was killed by the flood in Genesis; Following a battle with the Midianites, every male Midianite child was killed; Menahem, a king of Israel and servant of God followed a battle by "ripping up" all pregnant women on the other side, and on and on and on.

Here are some more passages describing the baby killer God in action:

Deuteronomy 2:34-- utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.

Deuteronomy 28:53-- And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.

I Samuel 15:3-- slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.

2 Kings 8:12-- dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

Isaiah 13:16-- Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished. (rape is fine too)

Isaiah 13:18-- They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

Lamentations 2:20-- Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.

Ezekiel 9:6-- Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.

Hosea 9:14-- give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. (a supernatural abortionist)

Hosea 13:16-- their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

And what state of mind should baby killers have?

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
Psalm 137:9

Then there's the problem with murder by inaction. If a good person kills someone who is about to kill an innocent child, then wouldn't it follow that an evil person allows the death of innocent children? If you have the power to stop the killing of a baby with no chance of harm coming to you, and don't use that power, aren't you at least an accessory in that killing? Well of course you are.

So, when an all-powerful God allows, much less causes, babies to die is he not evil? God (assuming that he's real) can stop the death of a child when he wants to: he did so in Genesis 22. He can even bring children back after he allows them to die as is shown in Job 42.

So with all of this power to save babies why has God allowed every abortion, miscarriage, death from AIDS, act of infanticide, and death from "acts of God" of every baby killed in such ways throughout human history. Surely a being such as this does not deserve to exist, and quite frankly sounds like more of a demon than a benevolent God.

Then there are all of the abortions that could be laid at Don Spitz's feet. Many, leaders and observers of the anti-abortion side of the abortion debate have credited the actions of Don Spitz, and his followers and heroes, with turning undecided Americans against the "pro-life" movement in the 90's, as well as strengthening the case for the pro-choice side. It could easily be assumed that this caused the abortion debate to be initially lost by the anti side, and thereby allowing every legal abortion performed in this country for the last decade.

So, if Don Spitz truly believes that abortion is a sin, and that anyone who helps it happen should be killed he should fall on his own sword. But, he, like Rudolph, is obviously afraid of death, and their residence afterward, so I'm sure this won't happen.
I rest my case---for now.

Rev Spitz--Terrorist Sympathizer/Ron Reader

Well folks, yesterday marks one of the proudest moments of my Internet career. I obtained a special new fan, and, better yet, was given enough material for several posts, which will allow me to avoid not having something to Rant about for quite some time.

Yesterday I had the following reply to my post "Jesus Love the Little Children":

Rev. Don Spitz said...
You are quite the anti-Christian bigot. Suffice it to say, most, if not all problems on the planet earth are from people like you who reject Jesus Christ. Our prisons are filled with people, like you, who reject Jesus Christ. Most if not all rapes, murders, robberies and thefts are committed by people, like you, who reject Jesus Christ. AIDS is mainly spread by people, like you, who reject Jesus Christ and have sex outside of marriage or else like children with AIDS get it from people, like you, who reject Jesus Christ. I hope you will turn from your sins and receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and escape the fires of eternal hell. Turning from your sins and giving your life to Jesus Christ is the only way you can escape the fires of hell and receive everlasting life. If you persist in your sins and continue to turn your back on Jesus Christ, you will be lost forever.

SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.

February 8, 2007 12:06 PM

Rev Spitz read only the post he commented on and took just 8:15 to read and respond to the post.

I was quite honored by his visit for a couple of reasons:

1)--As Michelle so eloquently put it, I had garnered my first "firebreathing raving godbag" troll.

2)--My visitor is not your run-of-the-mill Jesus freak, in fact, among the Christian-terrorist-nutbag demographic, Donald Spitz (the Rev) is something of a hero/media darling.

The Rev is the self-appointed spokesman/apologist for The Army of God, a fringe group of Christian fanatics whose major claim to fame for more than a decade has been the supporting of the cause of American domestic terrorists.

There is so much material here that I hardly know where to begin. But, I do know that to put it all in one post would make said post quite large, and after the post that the Rev commented on I promised myself that I would try not to make another post of that size for a while.

So that I can also tackle other issues that come to mind, I will most likely do several posts about the Rev and his entertaining attack on me.

In this post I will tackle the obvious starting point and address his comment.

First, a general observation about his comment. He did a better job with his comment of proving my point than anything I could have written. But, his fanaticism, and methods have a history of helping his opposition (more on this in a future post).

So, now to addressing the comment--

First we have the name calling intro:

"You are quite the anti-Christian bigot".

This line goes a long way toward showing the Rev's tendency to read things into what he reads instead of reading it, his tendency to make prejudicial assumptions based on little or no knowledge, and his lack of familiarity with the English language.

Had the Rev actually read the post then formed an opinion, instead of reading his opinion into the post, he would have seen the following lines:

"...my attacks on religions, primarily Christianity, have a serious side which stems largely from my opinion that fanatical religious beliefs are dangerous."

"I won’t go so far as to say that patriotism, ethnic pride, or even religious belief are in and of themselves evil, but such things in the wrong hands can be very dangerous."

My post is obviously directed at the fanaticism and actions of the subject of the post. I am not anti-Christian, or even anti-Christianity, otherwise I would actively engage in attempts to "convert" the 95% of the people in my life who are Christian, and definitely wouldn't have tutored religious studies at the Catholic University I attended. However, I will admit, as I have done for many years, that religious beliefs, in my opinion, are to knowledge, and social progress, what castration is to one's ability to procreate. I am anti-fanatic-of-any-religion, and, as the Rev and his people show, for good reason.

The Rev's opinion that I am anti-Christian stems not from anything I have said about Christians, but rather from his delusion that he represents true Christianity. So, when I attacked the wacko fanaticism that he holds to, and used his pal Rudolph as an example of the dangers of such ideas, he became defensive and lashed out, which is in stark contrast to the teachings of his dear Lord:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:38-39 KJV Bible

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Matthew 5:43-47 KJV Bible

As I am not bound by the words of a mythological creature I may lash out all I want, but the Rev is supposed to be an example of faith--so far he's not doing such a good job. His imaginary boss would be pissed.

Then there's the term bigot.

Webster's defines the word bigot as:

One who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So, he is comparing my views on Christianity to those of white-supremacists. Being a bigot, entails hatred of a group, so it would follow that I could no more love a Christian than a Klansman could love a black, much less marry one. Well, as it turns out, I did love AND marry a Christian, and not one of those Christian-when-it-suits-my-needs Christians, but rather an honest to goodness actual Christian whose faith was a large, and generally positive, part of her life.

My late-wife was a devout Catholic, we were married in the church, and both of my children were christened in the church. Admittedly, my children have become quite agnostic in their beliefs, but they know that they have the freedom to pursue other beliefs without fear of reprisal, which is more latitude than I was ever given by my fundamentalist wacko father.

You can't get more Christian than Catholics. The Catholic church along with the Eastern Orthodox church is the closest thing on the planet to being the original Christian church. The other 130,000+ Christian sects, (including the Rev's little group--Pentecostals) throughout the World are merely offshoots who have manipulated the words in the Bible to suit there own needs.

Of course a bigot, according to Webster's, could also entail being:

A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

This also couldn't apply to me because I am show no intolerance to people who hold beliefs different to my own. Once again I turn to my late-wife. She was Catholic--I an atheist, she was "pro-life"--I pro-choice, she voted for the first Prez Bush-I voted for Clinton. Not only proof that I am not intolerant, but also that opposites not only attract, but can have a loving wonderful marriage.

Then there's the prejudice of a bigot--I did not prejudge anyone whom I mentioned in my post or even the Rev, because of their religion. I researched Becky Fischer, watched the film, and read her website's various documents before I formed an opinion. As for the Rev, not only have I researched him, but I actually remember his being on television, and remember the terrorists that he supports (also, more on this in a future post).

But, this definition would definitely mean that the Rev is a Bigot, and, as a result, a hypocrite.

As for the cause of all of the World's problems, the population of prisons, people with AIDS, and criminals being people like me, that is not so easy to prove without a great deal of research, but I will say that it is unlikely, because Atheists like myself are an extremely small minority compared to Christians, so statistically his assertions are doubtful. I have never been in prison, don't have AIDS, never cheated on my wife, and am not a member of the Bush White House, any religious denomination, or Al Qaeda, so have not caused the World's problems. I will say however, that there are more convicted murderers, and thieves among his list of heroes than among mine (again, more later).

But, if he means people who are not true Christians, he is definitely right, because as we have seen, anyone who disagrees with him is (in his fantasy world) not a true Christian. This eliminates every human on the face of the planet except for a handful of people who share his beliefs, a good many of which are either in prison or have already been executed for their crimes (details ..you guessed it--in a future post).

Then we have his saying that I am bound for Hell. Well, once again he is in violation of the words of his sky-pixie:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 5:22 KJV Bible

For those unfamiliar with ancient Greek, Raca means (in modern terms) "your opinions are moronic." The Rev is bound for his own fire, poor guy.

Then we have the Rev's own version of talking to one's self. As it turns out this too is in violation of the words of Jesus:

The part of the prayer in which he asks for eternal life is in violation of Matthew 6:8 which says:

Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

E.G. don't ask for things because God already knows what you need. To ask for things is to show distrust of God's will and knowledge.

Then there is the whole prayer itself, which is in direct violation of Gods command contained in Matthew 6:9-13:

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

This is the only prayer you are to use, and its main theme is being given the ability to forgive other sinners, not a reward for yourself which is greedy. Don't believe me:

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Matthew 6:14-15 KJV Bible

Yes, Rev--you are in deep shit if your sky-god exists.

Well that covers my reply to his comment. Being a person who believes in a tit-for-tat approach to blogging, I left the following comment on the Rev's blog:

Well Rev it seems that you have been busy trolling the web and attacking people.

I came here to challenge you to defend the comment left on my last post if you think you can.

So, I do hereby challenge you to defend your positions as a self-appointed soldier of God. If you in fact have God and truth on your side then your beliefs should be unrepraochable, and stand up to scrutiny, because your god is supposed to be all powerful and infallible.

I personally feel sorry for Christianity if its self-appointed defender cannot defend it.

I also feel badly for all of the actual decent Christians in the World because they are so often represented by wing-nuts like yourself.

I look forward to more of your infantile ravings and leave you with the following quote from a self-proclaimed Christian who reminds me a lot of you:

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."


p. 46 Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler

Good day sir--I look forward to hearing from you.

11:33 AM [ 8 February 2007]

I'm not overly confident that he will take up my challenge, but if he does it promises to be fun, and I promise to share it with you.

Unless I do receive a reply, my next post concerning the Rev will most likely entail a discussion of the Rev's background and co-wackos.