Be Careful What You Pray For...

Well folks, the same group of people who are constantly calling for having God put into politics, are now engaged in prayers, because of God being part of politics.

Officials in Uzbekistan have arrested Dmitry Shestakov (a.k.a. Pastor David), a Pentecostal preacher for inciting religious hatred, insulting Islam and distributing banned literature. Evangelical leaders in Uzbekistan, and elsewhere are crying foul saying that Shestakov's arrest is part of a pattern of religious intolerance by the government of this predominantly Islamic nation.

The Russian Orthodox Church is recognized by and registered with the government, as are some other Christian groups, but according to the Uzbek authorities, Shestakov was preaching without permission.

While I, by no means, support arresting people because of their religion, Uzbekistan's government and religious leaders make some good points about Shestakov and his ilk.

Some of Uzbekistan's Imams feel that Shestakov's arrest is a good thing because he and other pentecostal missionaries "set out their traps and our young people fall into them. We must punish in the harshest way those who poison the minds of our youth." Uzbek government spokesmen have questioned Shestakov’s being a real pastor because, "Earlier he abused alcohol and was dependent on drugs and now he presents himself as pastor David."

These claims have been confirmed by Shestakov's wife who also added that the good pastor had been in prison "several times." It has also been confirmed that Shestakov has been officially warned twice before about his "illegal religious activities."

The only person who has been allowed to see the pastor is his personal lawyer. According to Shestakov's followers his getting his own lawyer instead of a state appointed lawyer was in answer to their prayers. They didn't say why they didn't just get him released by praying for that.

Let me reiterate that I don't favor religious oppression, but if Pentecostals and other Evangelicals are going to rant and rave about having religion in government then they should shut up, and obey the laws put in place when a god is put into government. It is this exact type of situation that Jefferson saw happening in the American colonies and was trying to avoid by "building a wall of separation between Church & State." A wall which American Evangelicals are constantly trying to tear down.

Of course the issue here for Evangelicals would seem to be that it is not necessarily religious oppression that is the issue, but rather that this time they aren't the ones trying to oppress. When Evangelical leaders like Pat Robertson call Muslims "evil," and "Satanic," then compare the to Hitler and, say that Islam "is not a peaceful religion that wants to coexist. They want to coexist until they can control, dominate and then, if need be, destroy,", it is alright, but when drug addict/Evangelical preachers are called bad people it is "intolerance." When Evangelicals like Jerry Falwell say that America cannot accommodate ideas "that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth," it is "God's will," but when one of theirs is arrested for trying to control, and dominate children it is oppression.

Where are these self-proclaimed champions of tolerance when atheists are attacked by Christians, because they don't believe in God, or even when Evangelical Christians attack other Christians because they worship the same god differently (occurrences of which have according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have risen sharply in the last few years)? They were standing behind the attackers pressing them on, that's where.

Evangelicals, and other religious folk, need to stand back and face the truth--you can't have it both ways: if religion is involved with government things like this are inevitable, so my advice to these hypocrites is simple:

Shut the Hell up! And, Be careful what you pray for

Technorati Tags:

evangelicals hypocrisy jerry falwell pat robertson pentecostals

Organized Crime for Christ

Stealing a church, buying male prostitutes, smoking meth, and environmental activism.

The crimes committed by leaders of the gay agenda? No?

Crimes committed by godless atheists? No?

Actually these are the activities of some of the leaders of the most active group in American organized crime today: The Evangelical Christian Mafioso.

Our Crook Pastor for the day is one Randall Radic, former pastor of Ripon's First Congregational Church in Ripon, California. This man of God managed to forge papers making him look like the owner of the Church property. He then used the papers to get $200,000 dollars in loans with the property as collateral, then sold the property for $525,000. Of course, since he is a man of God, no one from whom he got the loans, the people to whom he sold the church, or his blindly faithful flock thought that maybe he was up to no good.

The really good part about this is that aside from the six months he spent in jail, he will receive no further punishment. It seems that he has entered into a plea agreement--freedom in return for ratting out a murderer who supposedly confessed to him while he was in prison.

The pastor turned snitch has also found a publisher for a book he has written entitled "The Sound of Meat," a memoir of sorts about how he managed to sell a church right out from under its members. As I have always said: Illegal crime may not pay, but religion sure does.

Now, I'm sure that there are a number of people out there who will of course immediately say something to the effect that he "was not a true Christian." I've never understood what that meant, but I will say that he sure looks like a pastor to me, and according to Grace Notes, an online Bible study resource, Pastor Radic sure sounds like a typical Christian pastor:

Dr. Randall Radic

Dr. Randall Radic is the pastor of First Congregational Church in Ripon, California. He has graciously consented to provide some of his writings for distribution by Grace Notes. I think that you will really enjoy this teaching and receive blessing and help from his spiritual communication.

Dr. Radic has had an extensive and eclectic education in the Word of God. He received a B.A. in Classics from the University of Arizona; then he attended Bellview College in Westminster, Colorado, where he receive the Bachelors in Biblical Studies. He went on to receive the Master of Ministry and Doctor of Theology degrees from Trinity Seminar. Finally, he attended Agape Seminary where he received a doctorate in Sacred Theology.

He is a well-prepared pastor who has the rare ability to produce scholarly lessons that are readily understandable by most Christians.

That last line is my favorite.

I read some of his stuff, it is well written from a feed the believer standpoint. I'm surprised that some of his quotes haven't shown up here yet. My favorite article was one he wrote entitled "The False Prophet and the Mark of the Beast." I guess it takes one to know one.

I also liked the note that appears near the bottom of the bio. pages at Grace Notes:

There is no charge for Grace Notes Materials.

The ministry is supported by Christians who pray for the work and share in the expenses.

Radic's supporters sure prayed and paid.

Update on an Evangelical don I mentioned in a previous post: Estavam Hernandes-Filho and his wife have pleaded not guilty to smuggling charges in Florida. Brazilian officials are still waiting to get their hands on them for fraud and money laundering.

In other news, American evangelicals, the people formerly led by the solicitor/ice head Ted Haggard, are worried about negative growth in their numbers. To reverse this trend they are going after Hispanics and other ethnic groups. I guess the poor undereducated Caucasian population has been tapped out.

They are also going after children with activities that include clowns and parades, and trying to attract single-moms by offering to change their oil.

Incidents like this always bring the words of Ben Franklin to mind:

When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Granted single moms, and Hispanics don't constitute a civil power, but the basic message is the same.

There are Baptists in Texas who are putting this growth drive in jeopardy though. It seems that 2.3 million Baptist Texans are being asked by their leaders to help the environment by voicing their opposition to 18 new coal-fired power plants that the governor is proposing. This moves is also in opposition to the Southern Baptist Convention, who last summer denounced environmental activism and warned that it was "threatening to become a wedge issue to divide the evangelical community."

There is also concern that this will divide Baptists in Texas. It seems that God is telling different people different things. Quite the jokester this guy.

Next thing you know we will have an Evangelical preacher/reformed lover of prostitutes having a show on the Discovery Channel a bastion of scientific programs, or even Spike TV home of shows like Spike's Women of Action, Late Night Strip, and Films of Fury, which they describe as: "a kung-fu flick of unparalleled ass-kickin-ness." Their website is interesting too, especially the feature called "The Babe-A-Lizer."

Wait a minute folks--such a thing has happened. It seems that America's favorite cry-baby/prostitute lover Evangelical leader, Jimmy Swaggart, airs his BS on these two channels. OK, now I can't be surprised anymore.


Technorati Tags:

baptists christianity evangelicals hypocrisy jimmy swaggart ted haggard

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.

When at Fault--Always Blame Others. So Sayeth the Lord

Today I came across a tragic story out of Pittsburgh that I feel compelled to address.

It seems that last November Rev. Brent Dugan, pastor of Community Presbyterian Church of Ben Avon committed suicide in a motel room because of an upcoming investigative report from KDKA-TV, a local television station. The report was supposed to expose "illicit, possibly illegal, activity by a local minister, activities which at the very least violated the rules of his denomination." The behavior to be exposed, was the pastor's having been involved in a homosexual relationship for the preceding four years.

This story strikes at several issues that I have somewhat strong opinions about, but didn't show up on my radar until I found a story at Fox News this morning about the aftermath of the pastor's suicide. According to the story (that Fox mislabeled--more on this later), a coalition of religious leaders in Pittsburgh has lodged a complaint with the FCC saying that KDKA's news department had "'sentenced' Dugan before the presbytery had a chance to investigate and deal with his behavior."

All of reports and opinions I have seen about this chain of events, zero in on the KDKA's reporter's actions, which, admittedly were out of line, but by no means something new or odd.

By and large, the American news media had become a source of entertainment. Gone are the Murrow's and Cronkite's of decades past. Information-based news has been largely replaced by inaccuracy, sensationalism, and entertainment news designed to improve ratings and draw advertisers. Fox News, where I found the article, is the most notorious proof of this, but other news agencies are guilty too.

Fox labeled the story as "News Report on Porn Led to Priest's Suicide, Group Alleges in FCC Complaint." The report had nothing to do with "porn." The story was about Rev. Dugan's being secretly homosexual, and no where in the AP report that Fox used does it say so. Clearly the headline was designed to grab the attention of Fox News' largest demographic--right-wing conservatives, and had nothing to do with journalistic accuracy.

The top two headlines this morning on CNN's website were about the death of Anna Nicole Smith and the paternity fight over her baby. Clearly, for the folks at CNN, the death, and sex-life of a Playboy centerfold/Trim Spa spokesperson, take precedence over stories lower on the "Top Stories" list such as those about unethical and illegal behavior by the vice-presidential staff, the situation of the war in Iraq, and the tragic death of six children in a house fire in Kentucky.

It's no wonder more registered American voters vote for American Idol contestants than presidents. As Jefferson warned, ignorance is the biggest enemy of Democracy.

Investigative reporting can be a good thing. Investigative reporters exposed the Watergate scandal, the actions that led to the ongoing Libby trial mentioned above, the Abu Ghraib abuses, and many other useful informative stories, but the story at issue here is not one of them. Instead it falls more in the category of Anna Nicole Smith's love-child.

I am not saying that exposing a religious leader's hypocrisy is a bad thing, but that is not what appears to have happened here. Unlike sleazeballs like Ted Haggard, or Jimmy Swaggart, Rev. Dugan was not simply "caught:" he was, it appears, set-up. It seems that his lover arranged a meeting with him, and set it up so that the news cameras were there.

But, even being "set-up" is not the problem, because unlike douche bags like Haggard, Swaggart, or even my buddy Don Spitz, Rev. Dugan was not (that I can find) actively spreading hate, intolerance, and general stupidity, in fact, his denomination, Presbyterian, is one of the more compassionate Christian denominations in this country having taken the lead in compassion toward, acceptance of, and even ordination of homosexuals, and women.

My problem with this series of events revolves not around the hypocrisy of the victim of the story, or even the story itself, but rather what it says about Rev. Dugan's community, and American society.

The issue here is not hypocrisy, like with Haggard, and Swaggart, but rather society's response to this man's sex-life. The basis for the story wasn't an anti-gay homophobe turning out to be gay, it was a community leader's being gay period. In a church where being gay is not demonized, a pastor had to hide his being gay. Why?

Obviously Rev. Dugan felt that his life would be ruined when his "faithful" congregation, fellow religious leaders, and the rest of the community found out that he was gay. He knew that the very people who are publicly mourning him now, would have driven his ass out of town, and publicly condemned him as evil. Herein we see the true hypocrisy.

Religious leaders in Pittsburgh, and members of Rev. Dugan's congregation have publicly blamed the news report for Dugan's suicide. But, as wrong as the report was, it wasn't the prospect of being on television that drove Rev. Dugan to suicide: it was the bigotry of the people casting blame. He knew what would happen to him, so he, like so many gays who face this, saw no way out and ended his own life.

The people so actively engaged in placing blame for this know in their hearts where the blame truly lies, and need only do one thing to see who is really to blame.

All they need to do is look in the mirror.

Technorati Tags:

bigotry Don Spitz homophobia hypocrisy jimmy swaggart Rev. Brent Dugan ted haggard