Who would Jesus landscape?
There they go again. You know it one thing to say that gays are evil sinners undeserving of the right to marry. It is an absurd belief out of the Dark Ages but no where on the same level as people saying we despise homosexuals so much we refuse to even have dealings with someone who is gay. And don’t get me wrong. Bigots have the right to stay away from the people they hate provided they don’t use force against someone else. I defend the right of assholes to be assholes. And I defend the right to call them assholes too.
We go back down to the Theocratic Republic of Texas once again. (I am starting to think that the water down there contains something that lobotomizes people. Of course the Bible has a unique ability to cut off the rational faculties as well.) In Houston we have a garden service called “Garden Guy” that is “guy” not “gay” please note.
Michael Lord and Gary Lackey are a gay couple and they sent out requests for landscaping bids on their home. Well, Garden Guy is owned by “Christians” and they sent back an email saying they would not quote on the job or even look at the property, “we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work for homosexuals.” The typical Christian, loving, what-would-Jesus-do-if-were-a-gardner sort of thing.
Lord and Lackey told friends of this incredible response over a landscaping job and the word spread from there. Some people stupidly sent messages as hateful as the one the Christians typically send. Others merely expressed dismay at this sort of bigotry. And the Jesus addicts out there applauded and lauded them.
The owners say they have been flooded by messages from Christians cheering them on. And the silly woman who started the ruckus says: “We’ve become accidentally crusaders for Christ.” Really? Exactly which verse was it that said: “Thou shalt not landscape for homosexuals.” I missed that one. In fact it didn’t even come up at Bible college.
Now you might think it says homosexuals are dogs worthy of death -- that is a favorite theme of many Christianists. But no where does it say that if you own a landscaping business you are forbidden to do work for homosexuals.
Of course up to a few weeks ago the couple would have been thrilled to landscape for Ted Haggard. Apparently the good moral Christians also portrayed themselves as members of the Association of Professional Landscape Designers (who knew they existed). But the Association says they are misrepresenting themselves (thou shalt not lie) as they are not current members at all. And the Association says their “conduct does not conform to the policy and practice of the APLD.”
In fact I’d like to see more Christianists follow a policy similar to this. I think every born-again Jesus addict ought to refuse to allow fire-fighters to put out a fire on their property until they have written assurances from each and every member of the team that they are god-fearing heterosexuals. And to prove their faith in Jesus they should sit right there in side of the house until that happens. If Jehovah could protect Daniel in the furnace he can protect these accidental warriors for Jesus.
And before they dial 911 for help they need to know that the person taking the call is not gay and that no gay police members service on the police force. You sure as hell don’t want some homosexual with a gun coming around to your good Christian home. And hospitals! Don’t forget the hospitals. A good Christian who wants nothing to do with ______ (fill in the blank with whichever group God hates today) should be making sure that they don’t seek medical care with such people.
It is time these Christianists really separate themselves from evil. They should not buy from any store that will not give them a 100% guarantee of heterosexuality among their employees. No bisexuals either. Bisexuals are just people who sin with both sexes!
They should not even attend churches without absolute assurance that no homosexuals are there. In fact they better check out those kids lest any of them be budding pre-homosexuals. They should not buy electricity from producers who hire homosexuals, purchase water from companies that might employ such sinners, or drive in cars that might have had a homosexual involved in the design, production, distribution or sale of the vehicle. And while they're at it they better toss out that King James Bible -- apparently the King was a queen. He was buried with both his main male lovers. In fact the one is the only non-royalty buried there.
In the name of Christ they ought to cut themselves off from anything and everything that has anything whatsoever to do with gay men or women. They might have trouble finding employment and admittedly they couldn’t drive, fly, take a train, a bus or even walk (sidewalk could have been built by a company that hires gays) anywhere. They’d need to grow their own food (and hopefully it would rain since the water supply could be tainted by gay labor). They have to grow cotton and weave their own cloth for clothes. They’d be no entertainment but they can read the good book for enjoyment but only during day light).
Maybe they should just moved into a cave and hunt animals. Back to the stone age ought to be their motto. It describes their mentality and it describes where they would be in they consistently tried to implement this policy.
I do like the views of Ray Hill, a former evangelical Baptist (smart man) who said: “The Garden Guy isn’t the only landscape company in the Yellow Pages.” Amen, brother, amen.
And for those of you who still fantasize that the illusion of socialism works please note. Marriage is a government monopoly. Notice how almost universally gays get screwed on that. Why? Because there is no competition. But what effect can the bigots at Garden Guy really have on homosexuals? Very, very little. All they do is increase the business for their competitors.
Competition is great. Monopoly services are not regardless of who runs them. And government is the biggest monopoly of them all with all the defects one would expect.
And one last thought on these silly people. What would have happened if these accidental Jesus warriors had gone into a store and been told “We’re sorry we don’t serve Christians”? I suggest that the Christians would be in an uproar. There would be no talk about how a small business ought to have the right to choose it’s clientele. They would be weeping and gnashing teeth lamenting the awful treatment that they were receiving.
Now you know I think Jesus said a lot of things that were nonsense, provided the gospels quote him accurately. But for the life of me I don’t remember anything he said that could remotely be interpreted to justify this sort of stupidity.
posted by GodlessZone at Friday, November 10, 2006
13 Comments:
Why are atheists so angry all the time? You ever considered that these guys are'nt really christians, and may or may not really believe they are? Ever heard of someone claiming something, whether christian or atheist, that they really were'nt?
It's the need to rant and rage that seems to drive you to write with such conviction and stereotyping.
I'm a christian and would welcome the opportunity to landscape anyone's yard if it's what I did for a living.
October 12, 2007
Non-believers are upset with Christians for the same reason that Jews aren't fond of Nazis. Your fellow believers are intent on using coercive state power to impose their beliefs on others. That makes them unpopular. Censorship laws, antigay laws, forced creationism in the schools, forced abstinence indoctriantion, etc.
Next you have Christians acting like complete assholes -- as in this case. Just plain being nasty people. And when one of them really does something outrageous the other's chime in with the excuse that they "really aren't Christians" anymore. The believe in the Bible and Jesus. Unless you have evidence that they don't believe it then your defense is silly.
In addition the way they act is consistent with the rude, nasty behavior of millions of born again Christians in America. They aren't out of step with their fellow believers. In fact they bragged about how they got supportive emails from Christians and picked up new Christian clients who were thrilled that this couple was unpleasant. The PR problem is one you Christians have to deal with.
Don't try to turn into a problem with non-believers by pretending these people must not be Christians.
October 12, 2007
Wow! I really was'nt trying to make it a non-believers problem at all. As a matter of fact, I agree with you about the consistent nasty behavior of people who claim Christ. It's just hard for me to believe that a person who knows Jesus intimately would ever send an e-mail in support of what these two men did or reject anyone because they were gay.
You use words like "force" but I just see it as both sides fighting for what they believe in. If a non-believer wanted God removed from the pledge I would understand and respect his fight to get what they believe in. I would fight to keep it in because I think it is important. I would hope to have some general compromise on any of the issues you brought up such as censorship and creationism.
My original point is that there are many people who attend church evry Sunday who don't have a clue what it really means to be a christian. When people behave in such a manner the question arises, but in forums, so many times, tone is lost. And at the end of the day you're right- when christians act like assholes it sucks for both non-believers and believers.
October 12, 2007
Well, you certainly were implying that if they were nasty people (and they were) then they must not really be believers. The reality is that millions of people who “claim Christ” are very nasty people.
You seem to think people are just fighting for ideas -- they aren’t. The main fight, and one I don’t support, is to wield political power to force others. That is a fact. For instance the pledge is nonsense -- it was written by a socialist to push the idea of loyalty to the state. Now I don’t give a rat’s ass whether god is mentioned in some pledge or not -- provided it is entirely a private matter whether people say it. When the schools start classes with it I do find offense -- more so because it was written for totalitarian goals than for the little religious addition that was added during the late 1950s.
I don’t believe it is moral to compromise freedom and it certainly is not moral to do so with other people’s freedom. My view is simple. If you don’t like a book, don’t read it. You don’t make it illegal. If you don’t like a dirty word on a TV show change channels -- don’t fine the TV station for uttering vowels you find offensive. If you don’t like same sex marriage then marry someone of the opposite sex -- there is no need to ban it for gay people.
As long as the state runs schools it shouldn’t use the classroom to teach religion. I think private Christian schools should be free to teach what they want -- I graduated from one. But keep religion out when you are taking the money from the taxpayers. You can say Merry Christmas all you want -- even atheists say it though not for the same reasons. You can put up nativity scenes if you want -- on any property where you don’t take money out of my pocket --- which means on any private property offered to you. There is no shortage of such scenes. But every Christmas the Christians lament that they don’t have access to taxpayer funded sites for their religious displays.
If you believe the 10 commandments are good (I think many of them are not) then pass out copies to anyone willing to take it. But what the Christians whine about is that taxpayer funds are not being used to put these commandments on display in taxpayer funded buildings. Where everyone is forced to pay the ground should be religiously neutral. Where payment is voluntary (thus private) anything is fair game.
Over and over the reality is that the Religious Right in the US wants to use state power to pass laws to impose their values on other people, using money taken from those people by coercive taxation. And if they can do that in a location where citizens are forced to be present by law (like the schools) they are even more thrilled. All those are examples of using force to impose what they believe as religious people on others.
October 12, 2007
I'm very impressed with your response. You're very smart and make good points.
In all seriousness I don't get how you can define morality by whatever standard you desire yet a christian can't define it based on what he/she believes is the word of God.
Why should you get to determine what is moral concerning freedoms when others make an opposing argument with the same intention.
Are there not nasty non-believers? Talk about nonsense. You have cornered the market on double standards. There are nasty politicians and great politicians, as well as any race, religion, or class. I don't understand how you are so intelligent and can't seem to get this.
There are so many christians in the world that are feeding millions of hungry people, interacting in friendships with gay people and building houses and counseling drug addicts- name they are doing it voluntarily, but atheist get so upset over the "hypocrites." Every christian is a hypocrite- is that such a newsflash? So is every atheist and so on. We (both bel. and non-bel.) spit our insults and get so angry when we don't have to.
Where do your morals come from and why should they be imposed on me if you don't want mine imposed on you?
October 13, 2007
Let us first see if religion answers the morality question. All it does in my opinion is give people a ready made sense of morality (based on what other people claim it means). It is an excuse not to think about morality. But even so it doesn’t answer the question.
First, there are dozens of issues of morality totally unrelated to Scripture. And second there is the problem of having 10 theologians holding 15 different views about what the Bible actually means. That is why you get the Christians who are so nasty that you question their beliefs. They are convinced they are following the Bible.
The Bible says kill the witches and homosexuals and to stone disobedient children. The Ten Commandments you referred to are not just commandments but they came with penalties for disobeying -- most of which involved executing the sinner. You would say that is no longer in forces. Others say it is.
Is there objective morality God? Thou shalt not kill -- unless God commands it. Then you can slaughter entire tribes of people, right down to the children and the livestock if your feeling particularly bloodthirsty. The reason that there are easily thousands of Christian sects is because they can’t find the “clear” meaning of Scripture so clear. Of course each is convinced the other is wrong.
What does it mean to impose your morality on others? It means using force against them. The rapist is imposing on the victim. The murderer is imposing on the victim. So to stop people from imposing on others is not itself imposing on them. It is self defense. It is not offensive but defensive. The law, so limited, would protect each from being coerced by others but would otherwise leave them free.
You also assume that there is no moral standard required by our very nature. Each thing that is is something specific with a specific nature. The nature of that entity is what imposes on it the conditions necessary for it to live and thrive. Nature itself compels certain forms of conduct for that purpose. Humans thrive best when they are free to cooperate with one another and exchange value for value. That sort of thing is not a subjective whim but something our nature requires the same way a flower needs water to thrive. The basic moral codes that evolved around the world are very similar at the core because everyone has the same nature.
A community where people respect the property of others and the lives of others thrive. Those that violate such rights begin to falter no matter how much capital they have built up over the years. Communities that never understood both, or one, of those two main issues die out. In this morality is like picking berries and eating them -- try what you want but if you make the wrong choice you die out.
Actually in your second point you are starting to grasp an important point I make periodically here. You are right there are nasty religionists and nice religionists. They are just like people of all faiths or no faiths. And that is fatal to your first argument that belief in a deity provides moral guidance. Clearly it doesn’t otherwise you wouldn’t be saying that believers are no different than non-believers. You would be saying that they clearly are morally superior and better people because the Bible guides them. It doesn’t, they aren’t and in fact the evidence is that non-believer are less likely to go to jail for crimes, less likely to get divorced, less likely to get pregnant as teens, etc. That doesn’t mean that atheists are more moral necessarily (that issue would take too long to explain) but it does mean that there is no moral advantage to being guided by the Bible.
There is one advantage to non-belief when it comes to treating others badly. If you are convinced that God demands you be nasty to sinner then you have no choice but to be nasty. Many Christians I’ve met have argued that they are obeying God and even though they don’t understand his ways and wouldn’t act this way otherwise, they have no choice but to be obedient. An atheist has no one else to blame for his actions. If an atheist is nasty it is his own damn fault. He isn’t obey a deity who demands such behavior.
Atheism is a lack of a belief. It is the absence of a specific belief and nothing else. No one acts nasty based on what this absent concept. People always act on positive concepts. It is what you “believe in” that compels you to act. Now an atheist may find a religion substitute, like communism, and then act nasty to be people. But it is his communism that compels the nastiness not his atheism.
But even so that choice is his own to make. He is morally responsible and can’t say he was obeying God -- like the priest who was recently convicted in Argentina for genocide during one of the military regimes. He says he was doing God’s work. So are the ultraZionists saying God wants them to take the land from under Palestinians. The men in the planes on 9/11 were compelled by their faith.
By the way an atheist is not a hypocritical atheist it is not possible. Atheism per se is not a set of moral beliefs, It is only the absence of a belief in a deity. The only hypocritical atheist would be one who believed in god. But if he believed in god he wouldn’t be an atheist. It is not possible.
But Christians don’t merely assert there is a god. They assert he reveals to them how people are supposed to live. They have a long list of dos and donts and that is where their hypocrisy coms in. They don’t live by the moral standards they attempt to impose on others. And I note no one would care if they were hypocrites or not except for that attempt to use legislation to impose the values they preach on others.
So when they want to deny gay people rights and then are caught with gay prostitutes it is an issue. When they preach that the state must impose “family values” and are cheating on their wives it is a public issue. If they advocated leaving others alone, and actually did that, if they cheated on their wife it would be their business and their wife’s but no one else's.
Finally, as implied in what I said, I don’t want to impose on you. My deal with Christians is this: I’ll leave you alone if you leave me alone. I won’t violate your property or you freedom if you respect mine. I won’t use the state to make you avoid religion if you don’t use it to force religion on me, in any guise. To say that leaving others alone is imposing on them is to reverse the meaning of words.
October 13, 2007
By the way consider things about which the Bible has nothing to say. While there are some dietary codes in Leviticus it really is silent about a lot of what you eat. And few believers bother with the dietary codes. How do they know what to eat without God telling them?
Is there a reason humans tend to eat broccolli but not tree bark? What compels us towards certain types of nutrients while avoid other types. This shows what I mean about about how the nature of an entity determines how that entity must act to survive. You can’t act contrary to that nature without suffering. There is no need for divine retribution as the “sin” is it’s own punishment.
I would also ask you this: why is it that you think atheists are running around raping, pillaging and plundering? Why is it that they live pretty much like everyone else?
And if you and I were to end this discussion with you rethinking your theism and then abandoning it would you go off and kill people, beat children, steal or act in a generally nasty way? Or would you basic morality remain unchanged? And if so why would remain unchanged?
See, I don’t think that god or the Bible are the primary reasons you aren’t killing people smacking old ladies. The fact is that you see that there are natural benefits to acting in certain ways and problems in acting other ways. And there are plenty of bad people, convinced that a deity exists, who still act badly. The one remark that I thought made the case well goes something like this:
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
October 13, 2007
Whoa! I'm a little behind on my blogging.
I'm sorry I was off watching my brother and about 700 people from his church do "Extreme Makeovers" for four non-english speaking families.
But that's neither here nor there because somewhere in your past you drew the conclusion that "Nazi" christians are bloodthirsty childkillers. If I really believed this then I would be even more outraged than you.
First of all religion is the problem which was my first point. People act religious instead of nurturing a relationship with Jesus. Jesus is and always will be the one to change lives. You see I accepted his gift of salvation because he paid a debt that I could'nt. Now, my response to that amazing act of love is to love him back and to try and love everyone as he did. Although many christians operate under the do's and don'ts as you stated, the calling of God has always been Come to me."
Now as far as there being different takes on scripture and the people that totally distort it for their own benefit, I agree it's an obvious problem. I agree that it's also a problem that so many christians live in opposition to what they claim to believe. We need people to step up and deliver, but no matter how many step up and serv or do the most charity work or whatever you guys will play gotcha when they screw up. Those same people who worked their butts off for those families may be the same people who get angry in traffic and flip someone off. You then would disregard the great good and point to the traffic incident as evidence that they are a nasty person. As a christian I would say this was a nasty act and a forgiven one if you trust Jesus to have paid your debt for that nasty act. That does'nt make it ok and it does'nt make the case that there is no God. If there is a God, then no matter how nasty his people get it will never disprove His eternal existence: just proves there are many nasty people in desperate need of His grace.
Your point on nature is mine. I believe God created us in His image with free will to choose. In that we will always have a bend towards morality. The problem comes when people try to base their morality on their feelings instead of the truth. I believe God does give us moral guidance and as in any love relationship He must give us the freedom to choose His guidance or reject it. Again, because a person rejects God does'nt make the case that God does'nt exist.
I'm with you on alot of this, but when you start making erroneous statements like christians are more likely to be jailed and all that other crap you lose me. It's simply not true and downright ridiculous.
And I'm a christian not a Jew so let's talk Jesus and New Testament hre. Jesus says we ought to forgive because we are forgiven- for anything such as murder, rape, whatever. He never commands me to be nasty but only to love, love, and then love some more.
If hypocrisy is only for people of faith then it still applies to you. You have faith God does'nt exist. Everyone can and does things that contradict their words or their stated beliefs. There is no questioning the problem with christians who really are and the loonies who use God's name to steal peoples money or try to win an election. Surely you will agree that people who are a part of genocide are disturbed and committing acts that are in total contradiction to the Bible.
I've saved you all the scripture out of respect for you, but would be glad to back up my statements with specific scripture if you like. Let me know.
Did I say atheists are running arond raping and all that bull? I don't think so. The atheist I know are smart, successful, lost and not very happy with their faith in themselves because the world will never be enough. Their pride, education and arrogance always halt their quest for the truth that they can't earn it or do it themselves. It eats them up, but they continue to beat their heads against the wall trying to prove their belief in nothing. I hate it for them.
October 14, 2007
Jesus doesn’t change lives. People change their own lives. And any “hook” can do it for them. People who find ‘Allah” change their lives. People who become Mormons change their lives. People who discover a philosophy or a cause can change their lives. They are people who don’t have the confidence they can do it alone and invent something along the way that they say is higher than themselves. And they use that imaginary friend to allow them to do what they had the ability to do all along.
I never said Christians were Nazi bloodthirsty childkillers. Though the Nazis, for the most part, were Christians. I said they are humans, no better than anyone else, and no more moral. I said their religion has ultimately made no difference in the end.
I don’t say Christians live in opposition to the Bible says. The Bible is a book written by men with many different and contradictory messages. Pick and choose and you can find what you want there.
By the way I don’t give much thought to someone flipping someone off in traffic. See, none of those people are doing it out of a sense of morality or under the illusion that they have a divine mandate to do so. Religious people who are nasty believe they are following a divine will to be nasty and that is a very different, more dangerous thing.
Truth is that which corresponds with reality. It is not based on feelings. And God can’t give us freedom and still know the future at the same time. If he knows it then it is settled before we are faced with the choice. His foreknowledge must logically mean predestination and therefore mean no free will. If you can’t surprise a god with the expected then you don’t have the will to choose.
Rejecting a god doesn’t make it unreal anymore than believing in him makes him real. The whole thing rests on rational, empirical evidence.
You say Jesus brought love. You choose to find that and ignore the other parts that indicate the contrary. “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.” “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division.” Love? “If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
God is a mirror where man looks and sees himself. He finds a big version of his self. He creates his deity in his own image but perfected.
I do not say that people who commit genocide are acting contrary to Scripture. Jehovah commanded his “chosen people” to engage in genocide on numerous occasions. “Thus said the Lord of hosts... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slaw both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Jehovah told the Israelites to kill anyone who follows a different religion “Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to leave you astray...” “Show no mercy, have no pity! Kill them all, old and young, girls and women and little children.” “Defile the temple! the Lord commanded, “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill.” “You are my battle-ax and sword, says the Lord. ‘With you I shall shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms... With you I shall shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens...” “Anyone who is capture will be run through with a sword. Their little children shall be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped...” “Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he would holds back his sword from blood.” “Take the entire army and attack Ai, for I have given to you the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. You will destroy them as you destroyed Jericho and its king. But this time you may keep the captured goods and cattle for yourselves.” “The men of Israel withdrew through the territory of the Benjaminites putting to the sword the inhabitants of the city, the livestock and all they chanced upon.” Just a small selection of genocide that is not in total contradiction to the Bible but ordered by God according to the Bible.
And how arrogant of you to pretend you know how atheists feel. Why do you say this? Because you can’t stand the idea that their can be successful, happy people who don’t believe the nonsense you do. The world is full of them.
October 14, 2007
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 16, 2007
Like every fundamentalist I’ve ever met your true colors eventually come out. Your statement that I “deal in deception” and exhibit a trait of “a certain fallen angel” is typical. And if you want to say things like that about me you are free to do so -- just not here so don’t expect the posting to remain.
You say that Christians who do nasty things “feel very badly” about it “and try to make those things right”. If you can hear that it is me laughing from halfway around the world. What a joke! I have yet to see the leaders of the Christian Right apologize for the shabby way that they treat gays -- not only have they not apologized but they have stepped up their campaigns and are demanding that others act in the same inhumane way they have.
In additions if you want to preach sermons about salvation and Jesus bull you are free to do so but I will not provide you the means. It is common that god-addicts come here with this vision of coverting the atheists. They start out nice and sweet and usually argue as you did, that atheists are atheists because some “false” Christians did some bad things which they as “true” Christians will set right leading to the miraculous conversion of the atheists thus proving their god-delusions are accurate. Sorry to disappoint you.
Of course when that vision doesn’t take place they start to revert to form accuse their opponent of being dishonest and in league with an equally mythological devil and then jump in the pulpit. Jesus is dead. He never loved me -- and it wouldn’t do him any good if he did. He’s not my type. You don’t know what Jesus thought and neither does anyone else. We have only old records, written long after his death. Most the New Testament was written by people who never met Jesus and the gospels alleged to be written by people who had were only written decades after his death. After they were written we know they went through copying processes where the texts and verses were changed -- we know this because the old copies we do have don’t correspond. And then after centuries of that sort of problem we get it into the hands of people who translate it from one language to another and then another still muddling things up even more.
Into that mess come some backwater fundamentalists who now think they hold the infallible word of some deity who has choosen them to save the world. Laughable -- almost entertaining really.
October 16, 2007
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 16, 2007
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
October 16, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home