Leftover Links

Spent way too much time last week piling up rocks and too little time posting about all the stuff I’d bookmarked.

There are three words in the name of Grace Fellowship Church, but it seems that the pastor and deacons of the Tennessee congregation don’t understand what any of those words mean: “Assault Complaints Filed After Incident at Church.”

A gay Gibson County couple said they were assaulted when they tried to attend church services at the Grace Fellowship Church in Fruitland last Wednesday.

… Jerry Pittman Jr. said the attack was prompted by the pastor of the church, Jerry Pittman, his father.

“My uncle and two other deacons came over to the car per my dad’s request. My uncle smashed me in the door as the other deacon knocked my boyfriend back so he couldn’t help me, punching him in his face and his chest. The other deacon came and hit me through my car window in my back,” said Pittman. He said bystanders did not offer assistance. He said the deacon yelled derogatory homosexual slurs, even after officers arrived. He said the officers never intervened to stop the deacons from yelling the slurs.

Tony Jones points us to a story of pacifist-on-pacifist violence:

A group of religious castoffs has been attacking fellow Amish, cutting off their hair and beards in an apparent feud over spiritual differences in the deeply traditional community, a sheriff said Thursday.

Members of a group of families disavowed by mainstream Amish have cut the beards off men and the hair off a half-dozen or more men and women, Jefferson County [Ohio] Sheriff Fred Abdalla said. He said the cutting apparently was meant to be degrading.

The real, true Christian hegemons of Sussex County, Delaware, still don’t understand why Jews and atheists can’t just agree to pray in Jesus name like good Americans: “Debating The Lord’s Prayer: Sussex council’s public prayer heads for its first court test.”

The county has argued that the Lord’s Prayer is not an exclusively Christian prayer, and its themes are universal; thus, its public recitation by a government body is legal.

In a recent court filing, an attorney defending the county wrote: “It is as generic and universal a prayer as can be crafted, inoffensive in its non-denominational textual statements of supplication and belief, and as all-inclusive as a prayer may reasonably be.”

Good catch from Ed Brayton: It seems that Alan Keyes’ favorite song to perform turns out to be “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” — “a gay anthem written by a suspected communist and an atheist.” Here’s Tom Waits doing another great Yip Harburg song, “Brother Can You Spare a Dime?

“Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.”

A church sign asks, “Will I have a mustache in Heaven?” Yes, ma’am. Yes, you will.

Also from Jesus Needs New PRHow Dare You — A Mark (Drizzy) Driscoll Remix.” Critics of the desperately butch preacher Mark Driscoll will enjoy this remix of one of his many videos, highlighting his arrogant, belligerent style. But Driscoll’s admirers — including his biggest admirer, Driscoll himself — will probably enjoy this remix just as much.

“Dave Strenski, resident of Detroit exurb Ypsilanti, got it into his head that he would help the local food co-op reduce its bills by installing solar panels on its roof. And he didn’t let his complete lack of experience with solar stand in the way. …”

Here’s his website: Ypsilanti, Michigan Solar Project.

The National Religious Broadcasters organization is worried that the Internet is interfering with conservative Christians’ freedom to spread nasty lies about homosexuals.

The House for All Sinners and Saints blesses a new name.

A pair of useful visual aids:

1. How different Christian denominations see each other

2. A Brief History of Corporate Whining

Kristin Rawls discusses St. Francis, scary veiny Willow and what “might be the most explicitly Christian moment in the show.” She notes that the Christian imagery of this scene — in which the world is saved through sacrificial love — is surprising given the well-known religious skepticism of Buffy creator Joss Whedon. But to me that’s not nearly as surprising or strange as the utter absence of such imagery or such redeeming love in so much of what is marketed as “Christian entertainment.”

Rachel Held Evans — who is now sporting a daringly “unbiblical” haircut –  points us to this lovely story from Dana Reinhart:

She said to him, to my humiliation: “My granddaughter tells me you’re a famous actor but I’ve never heard of you.”

He stayed with her until the ambulance came and then he walked alongside the stretcher holding her hand and telling her she was breaking his heart by leaving the party so early, just as they were getting to know each other.

Phil Plait encourages his readers to listen to Marian Call. I did and I’m very glad I did so.

Jesus Christ is no reason to leave a band.” — Kendall Jones

Now celebrating 24 days without a prominent homophobe getting caught in a gay sex scandal.

  • Anonymous

    …they mandate rape?

    Essentially, yes they do.  They have very strict gender roles, and wives are expected to be completely submissive to their husbands.  Women aren’t allowed to say no to anything, including sex.  It’s not really framed that way though, because it’s supposed to be joyful obedience.  So instead of just “giving in” when the husband wants sex, the wife is supposed to do the mental gymnastics to convince herself that she really does want to do it.  Since the wife doesn’t actually say no, they certainly don’t consider it rape.  In cases of very forceful marital rape it could be viewed as physical abuse, and different families have differing views on whether women should be allowed to leave abusive husbands or if they should just submit more to make him magically change.

    The idea of female-on-male rape will never come up, because their view is that men are just uncontrollable lust machines that would never even want to turn down sex.  So men who have wives that are bold enough to initiate sex would never admit to themselves that they don’t actually want it.

    In reality, I don’t think most QF husbands rape their wives or vice versa, but it is certainly within their ideology to do so.  In the most famous families, the wife seems to want the kids even more than the husband does so she will have sex as much as possible to achieve that goal.

     Husbands are supposed to be considerate of their wives the way you’re supposed to care about a pet being happy, so if a wife didn’t want to a few times it would be ok, but if she wanted celibacy long enough to avoid a pregnancy, there would be a problem.  Essentially, if a woman simply didn’t want another pregnancy for any reason (including health) and she tried to achieve that by not giving in to sex, she would be judged very harshly for not trusting God, for hating babies, for not wanting more blessings, for being selfish, etc.  And the pressure to have more sex and therefore babies would not just come from her husband, but from her family, friends, and church.  So some people wouldn’t call that rape, but I would.

  • Anonymous

    No, I understand the stereotype of Catholics with large families.  My mom was raised Catholic and has plenty of funny stories.

    But the Duggars are not Catholic and nobody thinks they are.  They are not the face that anyone would put on Catholicism.  A picture of Rick Santorum with his 7ish kids would be more accurate.

  • Anonymous

    No, I understand the stereotype of Catholics with large families.  My mom was raised Catholic and has plenty of funny stories.

    But the Duggars are not Catholic and nobody thinks they are.  They are not the face that anyone would put on Catholicism.  A picture of Rick Santorum with his 7ish kids would be more accurate.

  • Lonespark

    The thing about the Amish hair-cutting attacks…that’s a German and Germanic custom that dates back a long way.  I know some Heathens who don’t cut their hair/beards/body hair for religious reasons.  

  • Lonespark

    The thing about the Amish hair-cutting attacks…that’s a German and Germanic custom that dates back a long way.  I know some Heathens who don’t cut their hair/beards/body hair for religious reasons.  

  • Anonymous

    Inclusive and non-demoninational? How about Roger Zelazny’s “Agnostic’s Prayer”

    “Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what
    I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have
    done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not
    forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit
    for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask
    that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be,
    in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in
    my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which
    may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your
    receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and
    which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.

    From Creatures of Light and Darkness.

  • Anonymous

    Inclusive and non-demoninational? How about Roger Zelazny’s “Agnostic’s Prayer”

    “Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what
    I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have
    done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not
    forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit
    for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask
    that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be,
    in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in
    my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which
    may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your
    receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and
    which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.

    From Creatures of Light and Darkness.

  • Anonymous

    No, people just aren’t smart, and get really defensive when you tell them that the stupid things they are doing are stupid.

    Yeah.  Funny how upset people get when your first response is to scold the victim for their stupidity.  And you wonder why you need to follow it up with a disclaimer.  Can’t imagine why people would get the impression that you don’t think the criminal deserves to be punished.  After all, you’re only talking about how the victim brought it on themselves. 

    Let me put this in perspective for you: they could have been killed.

    No, really?  Gosh, that never even occurred to me.  Good thing you’re here to tell me these home truths.   

    Would you have thought the same if that had happened, hmm?

    Two gay men go somewhere they have every right to go and they’re attacked by a gang of vicious thugs.  Why would my opinion change if the thugs committed murder instead of assault? 

    Now let me turn that question around on you: if they had been killed, would you still be going on about how this is Pittman Jr.’s fault?

    Not only had Pittman Jr. have committed suicide to make a point that really wasn’t worth his life, but he would have also murdered his boyfriend.

    And again, this is why you need your disclaimer.  You have completely erased Pittman, Sr.’s responsibility for this whole incident.  You are blaming the victim and no one but the victim.     

    Think about what you are saying. This past decade has been an object lesson in what happens to what happens when innocent third parties get caught up in the blind pursuit of the bad guys. There is an estimated 900,000 dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you space the graves by two feet, they would cover nearly 127 American Football fields. Imagine this massive graveyard, this result of the meatgrinder, and tell them “Hey, we got bin Ladin, so we’re all cool!” To say that would be a “gross insensitivity” would be gross insensitivity to gross insensitivities, but you really wouldn’t offend them. They’re too busy being dead.

    I’m…trying to think about what you’re saying here, and I’m having a hard time figuring it out.  Who is Pittman Jr. in this comparison?  The USA? 

    In any case, where did you get the assumption that the boyfriend went into this uninformed?  I can just as easily see a scenario where Pittman Jr. wanted to stay away from his Dad’s church but his boyfriend – not knowing how bad the situation could get – pushed him into it.  Who would you blame then? 

    Now, unless you can enlighten me to another, more innocuous reason (I have tried to think of one,)

    Must not have tried very hard.  Two possibilities:

    1) Just wanted to attend services.  Boyfriend, who’s heard a lot about Dad (and/or is an Evangelical Christian himself), wants to come along. (At least as likely as your scenario, based on the article)

    2) Pittman Jr. wanted to attempt a rapprochement with Dad, perhaps by trying to convince Dad how good the boyfriend was for him. (A bit more far out.  Dad’s 2006 assault charge for beating up Jr’s sister’s baby Daddy would probably have let Jr. know that strategy wouldn’t work)

    But hey, suppose you’re right.  Suppose it was an act of defiance.  Where would we be today if countless people hadn’t done similar, and faced similar response?  What makes you dismiss this as a teenage tantrum instead of a brave stand?  Why do you choose to focus on blaming the victim instead of the man who’s been charged with assault once before, and is also in trouble for stealing scrap copper from his estranged wife?

     

  • Anonymous

    No, people just aren’t smart, and get really defensive when you tell them that the stupid things they are doing are stupid.

    Yeah.  Funny how upset people get when your first response is to scold the victim for their stupidity.  And you wonder why you need to follow it up with a disclaimer.  Can’t imagine why people would get the impression that you don’t think the criminal deserves to be punished.  After all, you’re only talking about how the victim brought it on themselves. 

    Let me put this in perspective for you: they could have been killed.

    No, really?  Gosh, that never even occurred to me.  Good thing you’re here to tell me these home truths.   

    Would you have thought the same if that had happened, hmm?

    Two gay men go somewhere they have every right to go and they’re attacked by a gang of vicious thugs.  Why would my opinion change if the thugs committed murder instead of assault? 

    Now let me turn that question around on you: if they had been killed, would you still be going on about how this is Pittman Jr.’s fault?

    Not only had Pittman Jr. have committed suicide to make a point that really wasn’t worth his life, but he would have also murdered his boyfriend.

    And again, this is why you need your disclaimer.  You have completely erased Pittman, Sr.’s responsibility for this whole incident.  You are blaming the victim and no one but the victim.     

    Think about what you are saying. This past decade has been an object lesson in what happens to what happens when innocent third parties get caught up in the blind pursuit of the bad guys. There is an estimated 900,000 dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you space the graves by two feet, they would cover nearly 127 American Football fields. Imagine this massive graveyard, this result of the meatgrinder, and tell them “Hey, we got bin Ladin, so we’re all cool!” To say that would be a “gross insensitivity” would be gross insensitivity to gross insensitivities, but you really wouldn’t offend them. They’re too busy being dead.

    I’m…trying to think about what you’re saying here, and I’m having a hard time figuring it out.  Who is Pittman Jr. in this comparison?  The USA? 

    In any case, where did you get the assumption that the boyfriend went into this uninformed?  I can just as easily see a scenario where Pittman Jr. wanted to stay away from his Dad’s church but his boyfriend – not knowing how bad the situation could get – pushed him into it.  Who would you blame then? 

    Now, unless you can enlighten me to another, more innocuous reason (I have tried to think of one,)

    Must not have tried very hard.  Two possibilities:

    1) Just wanted to attend services.  Boyfriend, who’s heard a lot about Dad (and/or is an Evangelical Christian himself), wants to come along. (At least as likely as your scenario, based on the article)

    2) Pittman Jr. wanted to attempt a rapprochement with Dad, perhaps by trying to convince Dad how good the boyfriend was for him. (A bit more far out.  Dad’s 2006 assault charge for beating up Jr’s sister’s baby Daddy would probably have let Jr. know that strategy wouldn’t work)

    But hey, suppose you’re right.  Suppose it was an act of defiance.  Where would we be today if countless people hadn’t done similar, and faced similar response?  What makes you dismiss this as a teenage tantrum instead of a brave stand?  Why do you choose to focus on blaming the victim instead of the man who’s been charged with assault once before, and is also in trouble for stealing scrap copper from his estranged wife?

     

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    Yeah, just like all those people asking for trouble with their “civil disobedience” and “sit-ins.” They brought that police violence on themselves. /sarcasm

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    Yeah, just like all those people asking for trouble with their “civil disobedience” and “sit-ins.” They brought that police violence on themselves. /sarcasm

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, just like all those people asking for trouble with their “civil
    disobedience” and “sit-ins.” They brought that police violence on
    themselves.

    Just like Occupy Boston! http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/10/boston-mayor-says-sympathizes-with-protesters-but-they-can-tie-the-city/GFmOU1qwApiGhBNsNSzMIL/index.html “I understand they have freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but
    we have a city to manage,” [the Boston mayor] said in a telephone interview. “I’m open
    to suggestions, but civil disobedience will not be tolerated.”

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, just like all those people asking for trouble with their “civil
    disobedience” and “sit-ins.” They brought that police violence on
    themselves.

    Just like Occupy Boston! http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/10/boston-mayor-says-sympathizes-with-protesters-but-they-can-tie-the-city/GFmOU1qwApiGhBNsNSzMIL/index.html “I understand they have freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but
    we have a city to manage,” [the Boston mayor] said in a telephone interview. “I’m open
    to suggestions, but civil disobedience will not be tolerated.”

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Essentially, if a woman simply didn’t want another pregnancy for any reason (including health) and she tried to achieve that by not giving in to sex, she would be judged very harshly for not trusting God, for hating babies, for not wanting more blessings, for being selfish, etc.

    Does it occur to them that maybe if a mother’s health is struggling, that might be God’s way of saying, “You’ve had enough”?  

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Essentially, if a woman simply didn’t want another pregnancy for any reason (including health) and she tried to achieve that by not giving in to sex, she would be judged very harshly for not trusting God, for hating babies, for not wanting more blessings, for being selfish, etc.

    Does it occur to them that maybe if a mother’s health is struggling, that might be God’s way of saying, “You’ve had enough”?  

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Yeah, just like all those people asking for trouble with their “civil disobedience” and “sit-ins.” They brought that police violence on themselves. /sarcasm

    To be fair, there are a few people in the Occupy Seattle movement who are kind of doing that.  The main gathering place of the protestors is in a plaza park in downtown Seattle between a shopping and several other places of business, at a busy intersection and near a bus tunnel station.  The city has an ordinance against camping overnight in public parts, and the mayor came to the protest himself to offer coffee and voice his support for their sentiments.  However, he said that he also has to enforce the no park camping ordinance and thus protestors would not be allowed to camp in that park over night.  However, he did offer to let them keep a few public tents up for first aid and organizational purposes, and that they were free to come and camp in the plaza in front of city hall (which they can use for the restrooms on the first floor) during the evening.  

    Most of the protestors took the mayor up on his offer, which I feel was pretty reasonable, but a few of them are refusing to leave the park in the evening, insisting that the protest is more important than protocol.  So far, no one has actually been arrested (the police were specifically ordered not to make any arrests in this regard, at least for the moment) but there are hints that will change after giving people an opportunity to shift their night-time operations.  The police did keep the area surrounded with patrol cars with their lights flashing all night though as a warning.  

    In any case, I think that the ones choosing to remain sleeping in the park instead of walking to a different park a few blocks away to sleep are kind of asking to get arrested. I suspect that they know as much going into it though.  

    Incidentally, there is ongoing negotiation with the city to get some kind of special permissions set up.  

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Yeah, just like all those people asking for trouble with their “civil disobedience” and “sit-ins.” They brought that police violence on themselves. /sarcasm

    To be fair, there are a few people in the Occupy Seattle movement who are kind of doing that.  The main gathering place of the protestors is in a plaza park in downtown Seattle between a shopping and several other places of business, at a busy intersection and near a bus tunnel station.  The city has an ordinance against camping overnight in public parts, and the mayor came to the protest himself to offer coffee and voice his support for their sentiments.  However, he said that he also has to enforce the no park camping ordinance and thus protestors would not be allowed to camp in that park over night.  However, he did offer to let them keep a few public tents up for first aid and organizational purposes, and that they were free to come and camp in the plaza in front of city hall (which they can use for the restrooms on the first floor) during the evening.  

    Most of the protestors took the mayor up on his offer, which I feel was pretty reasonable, but a few of them are refusing to leave the park in the evening, insisting that the protest is more important than protocol.  So far, no one has actually been arrested (the police were specifically ordered not to make any arrests in this regard, at least for the moment) but there are hints that will change after giving people an opportunity to shift their night-time operations.  The police did keep the area surrounded with patrol cars with their lights flashing all night though as a warning.  

    In any case, I think that the ones choosing to remain sleeping in the park instead of walking to a different park a few blocks away to sleep are kind of asking to get arrested. I suspect that they know as much going into it though.  

    Incidentally, there is ongoing negotiation with the city to get some kind of special permissions set up.  


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X