Setting the world on fire for Jesus

Perhaps you’ve seen the video.

A peculiar fellow in a pink shirt stands on the lawn in front of General Mills headquarters. He holds a box of Honey Nut Cheerios and a propane torch.

The man says:

One out of every eight boxes of cereal in this country is Cheerios. This is really the treat now for the homosexuals. And this is our protest of General Mills — right there — advocating same-sex marriages. So we are gonna torch some cereal.

It goes downhill from there. The plastic liner of the cereal box erupts in flames just as a strong gust of wind kicks up and, well, the lawn catches fire.

“OK, get out of here, guys,” the man says to the giggling person shooting the video. “Quick! Quick get in the car!”

The video went viral — and not because the people sharing it were impressed with this man’s bold, principled stand in the culture wars.

The odd thing, though, is that everywhere I saw this video linked and posted initially, the man was identified as a Christian or a preacher or some kind of evangelical protester.

I assumed that everyone assuming that was correct, but it was odd because nothing the man says or does in the video identifies him as such. He doesn’t mention God or the Bible or in any way identify himself as a religious person. There’s nothing sectarian in the video at all.

So why did everyone assume that this man was an evangelical Christian?

Because he’s anti-gay.

More specifically, because he’s disproportionately concerned with being anti-gay and he’s choosing to express that concern in a goofy, obnoxious and destructive way.

And in the present age, in 2012 in America, all of that marked this man as an evangelical Christian just as surely as if he were wearing a Jesus-fish necklace and a Newsboys T-shirt.

Please let that sink in. Please contemplate what that means for the witness of evangelical Christians in America in 2012. Please consider what that means for the reputation of the church.

That’s three “pleases” there, because I am begging — I am begging my brothers and sisters, my fellow evangelicals here in America, to step back and think about how we got to this sorry state of affairs.

That video? This is who we are now in the eyes of the world. And they are not wrong to see us this way.

Oh, and as for that assumption that everyone was making the other day, that this goofball with the flaming Cheerios must be some sort of evangelical Christian?

Everyone was right.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

How to make a fortune (and lose your soul) prophesying the End Times
'You will find out on that day ...': False prophets and lost endings
When identity is bound up in a lie
Culture warriors have weird ideas about how courts work
  • Twig

    And they will know we are Christians by our love flaming Weetabix.  

  • Tricksterson

    “flaming Weetabix”

    Okay, now I’m picturing them as pink and glittery.

  • Christine

    I honestly don’t get the preoccupation fundies have with setting things they don’t like on fire. It’s kind of disturbing, really.

  • AnonymousSam

    Just reflects on their perspective of the religion, I guess: God’s love for his followers is expressed by his eternal fires for their enemies.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Here’s my hypothesis:

    Fire is fun. Sitting near a campfire or bonfire, roasting marshmallows, singing songs, making out, talking about the meaning of life — it’s fun. It’s hot and bright and pretty and dangerous, and controlling it gives people a sense of power.

    But fundies aren’t supposed to have fun. They’re not supposed to enjoy their intellects or imaginations or bodies or those of others. What they’re allowed to do and think and feel is sharply proscribed. They’ve been taught that this world is wicked and horrible, and they believe that enjoying this world is therefore wicked and horrible.

    But burning something in protest — that’s okay. They can pretend they’re doing it out of righteousness rather than because they like to burn and destroy things. Once all healthy options of enjoyment are cut off, destruction is all that’s left.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ mistformsquirrel

    As someone who was a bit of a pyro growing up, I can definitely attest that FIRE IS AWESOME. (^_^) 

    I also once lit a lawn on fire (‘x’) though to be fair it was our lawn, and I was 12 at the time.   I was trying to burn some bees out of their nest because it was too close to the house and it seemed like a fun thing to do.  My method was.. flawed – I had a sock on a stick that I lit up, and the sock didn’t so much ‘burn’ as it ‘melted’… and hit the tinder-dry grass and lit the whole yard on fire.  Oops.

    (I’ll not get into the time I tossed kerosene onto a campfire to get it going… let me just say that wasn’t so much fire as it was HOLYSHITBOOM.)

  • AnonymousSam

     OT: Do you RP? I swear I’ve heard this story before. :p

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ mistformsquirrel

     I do indeed (@_@) hrm, now I am curious

  • AnonymousSam

    Heh, odds are not too remote that we may have met at some point, then. Throughout the years, I’ve wandered through WBS, GO, IMC, about forty HTML-based webchats, ten IRC networks, a few forums, a dozen c-boxes and who knows what else. If it’s RP-related, I’ve probably been there at least once and complained about those kids and their music.

    Probably didn’t associate with you much if so, though, so don’t be afraid of misidentifying a past acquaintance. I tend to be a lurker who pops in now and then to write a book with someone and then vanish into obscurity.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ mistformsquirrel

    Ahh hehe, I haven’t done it a great deal online myself – a little on Giant In the Playground, but that’s about it really.  (._.) I was thinking you might be someone I may have met in a RL RP group;  though I suppose I haven’t done that in years too hehe

  • Raoul

     They want to do god’s work.
    They believe god sends people to eternal hellfire.
    So why not send the things of earth to destruction by earthfire?

  • Lurker

    Serious question, and please feel free to link me somewhere if this has already been answered. At what point do evangelicals of good conscience tire of the abusive relationship between their church and the people they feel called to help and serve and love? At what point do they leave? At what point will they say, let the church burn, and once it is forever destroyed, we will grow new life from its ashes?

    I mean, one of the stronger emotional arguments for atheism is the continued existence of the evangelical church: What deity worthy of acknowledgement would allow these travesties to continue, except to prove to the world that he is either a liar or must not be trusted?

  • Gotchaye

     I’m not clear on what you mean by “the evangelical church”. 

  • http://deird1.dreamwidth.org Deird

    At what point do they leave? At what point will they say, let the church burn, and once it is forever destroyed, we will grow new life from its ashes?

    I don’t know. All I know is, I’m not there yet.

    Christians are called to love their enemies; for me, a lot of those enemies are people I go to church with. I’m trying to stay and love them – partly because, if it hadn’t been for fellow Christians sticking around and trying to talk about love, I would still be anti-homosexuality and anti- an awful lot of other things.

  • Tricksterson

    Lurker is specifically referring to evangelical Christians I believe.  Are you evengelical?

  • http://deird1.dreamwidth.org Deird

    Lurker is specifically referring to evangelical Christians I believe.  Are you evengelical?

    Technically? Kinda.

    The “evangelical”/”mainline” labels don’t exactly cross continents, but both churches I’ve been a member of would line up pretty well with standard American evangelicals. Certainly I recognise most evangelical stuff as being pretty much like where I’ve come from.

  • Tricksterson

    All I can say then is that as an individual, you’ve always come across as both pleasant and reasonable.

  • http://deird1.dreamwidth.org Deird

    Thanks!

    In fairness, my church(es) aren’t quite as bad as the evangelicals that tend to get discussed around here. Similar values (or lack thereof) and so forth, but we seem to be less prone to… well, to setting lawns on fire, for one thing. While my old church would be against marriage equality, they’re willing to admit that it’s a bit more complicated than that – and unlikely to do public protest.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    At what point do evangelicals of good conscience tire of the abusive relationship between their church and the people they feel called to help and serve and love? At what point do they leave? At what point will they say, let the church burn, and once it is forever destroyed, we will grow new life from its ashes?

    Not an evangelical but–maybe the day there is no longer ten righteous people within the church. Which is not today.

  • ReverendRef

    This past Sunday I was preaching on Ephesians (I’m doing that a lot lately).  Our particular passage read, I beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

    I discussed what being humble and gentle meant; that we weren’t to become doormats for Jesus, but that we were to speak out against harmful, hurtful, and hateful actions without resorting to the tactics of the people doing the actual harming.

    I used the fictitious example of a local business displaying a Confederate flag and suggested that organizing a boycott of the business and continually writing letters to the editor of the local paper on why that flag is seen as harmful, hurtful and hateful to a large number of Americans.  “What we do not do,” I said, “is to vandalize their building and burn crosses in their parking lot.”

    Little did I know that burning Cheerios was becoming the new way to exhibit one’s faith.

    Forrest’s mom was right:  Stupid is as stupid does.

  • hidden_urchin

    And here I always thought “on fire for Jesus” was just an expression.

    It figures that there would be someone who would take it literally.  Just like the Bible.

  • reynard61

    Bruce Wayne: “Targeting me won’t get their money back. I knew the mob wouldn’t go down without a fight, but this is different. They crossed the line.” 
    Alfred Pennyworth: “You crossed the line first, sir. You squeezed them, you hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn’t fully understand.” 
    BW: “Criminals aren’t complicated, Alfred. Just have to figure out what he’s after”. 
    AP: “With respect Master Wayne, perhaps this is a man that *you* don’t fully understand, either. A long time ago, I was in Burma. My friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit. So, we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never met anybody who traded with him. One day, I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing them away.” 
    BW: “So why steal them?”
    AP: “Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
    Sometimes I think that that last sentence describes the Extreme Right to a “T”. They want to watch the world burn. A few; like John Boehner, or Eric Cantor, or Mitch McConnell, or Rick Santorum; may have plans to rebuild a new society on the ashes. (A society that benefits *them* the most, of course…) But quite a few more; like Alan West, Louie Gohmert, Michele Bachmann*, Steve King and that 27% at the bottom of most political polls that stubbornly refuses to live in the Real World; just want to see the rest of us go up in the flames of Hellfire without regard for the consequences — even to themselves.

    *Yes, some women also want to see the world burn…

  • http://heathencritique.wordpress.com/ Ruby_Tea

    Such an attitude seems a not-unnatural consequence of seeing this world as nothing more than a place to wipe your feet while you wait for the Rapture and/or Heaven.

  • Julian M Elson

    So, if everything went according to plan, they legally purchase some Cheerios, then set them on fire rather than eating them. End result: they are poorer, having spent money on food they won’t eat, while General Mills is richer. (The lawn fire might have cost General Mills more money than their Cheerio profit, but that was presumably an unforeseen (although not unforeseeable) accident.)

    Is this supposed to make General Mills reconsider its views?

    Are they as wounded as J. K. Rowling was by all the people buying Harry Potter books to burn?

    I suppose I can’t object too much when the forces of intolerance are tactically ineffective, but the reasoning just befuddles me.

  • AnonymousSam

    I’d have been wounded by knowing that other people would be unable to appreciate my literature, or the food that I had made. But then again, isn’t one of the defining traits of the religious right something which can be summarized as “I dislike this and I don’t want anyone else enjoying it either”?

  • GDwarf

     

    I suppose I can’t object too much when the forces of intolerance are
    tactically ineffective, but the reasoning just befuddles me.

    Indeed, many modern protestors seems to have missed the key fact about book/comic/album/whatever burnings: You get people to come and burn things that they’ve already bought. The idea is that they bought them in ignorance and now see how harmful they are and, as a sign of that, they’re burning them.

    You can also do the variation where you buy up every copy of something so that others won’t be tainted by it, but that just means that the product has sold out and will doubtless be getting a second shipment.

    This…”Protest” does neither. The person doing it clearly never thought about it at all.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    What on earth do Cheerios have to do with homosexuality? Well, maybe it can apply to lesbians, if you really really think about it too much. But still, CHEERIOS? And setting it on fire in protest is rather silly. It’s fine if you’re eight years old and have the What-Would-Happen-If-I-Set-THIS-On-Fire attitude, but these are grown men. At least they’re supposed to be. Ever get the notion that a lot of Fundies just like to destroy things? 
    Cheerios as a symbol of gay marriage doesn’t even make sense. And one out of eight marriages is NOT homosexual, at least not yet. 
    I’ve been on the record here before as not being in favor of gay marriage, (please no flame wars) but I am willing to listen to the arguments supporting it, plus I will confess that Chick-Fil-A sandwiches are just too delicious to boycott completely. And I’ll be the first to say that this kind of protest, setting cereal on fire, is just too laughable to be of any real use for their lost cause.
    Here’s an idea, in reaction to this nonsense I’d like to see more homosexuals stock up on Cheerios, maybe make it a symbol of homosexual couples. Maybe some mock commercials on YouTube, who knows.

  • Ross Thompson

    What on earth do Cheerios have to do with homosexuality?

    You’re overthinking it. General Mills supports marriage equality. General Mills makes Cheerio’s. Therefore Cheerio’s are a gay cereal. QED.

    And the “One out of every eight boxes of cereal in this country is Cheerios” statement is presumably intended literally, though I don’t know if it’s accurate.

  • http://heathencritique.wordpress.com/ Ruby_Tea

    Is he including Honey-Nut Cheerios in that calculation?  Because those are damn tasty.

  • Termudgeon

    You’re willing to listen to the arguments supporting it, Ann? Good. Now, what are the arguments *against* it?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    Well, setting cereal on fire is NOT one.

  • Termudgeon

    Yes, we know that, Ann. I’m interested to hear the arguments of the other side too, but it’s very frustrating, because they disappear like Scotch mist in the sunlight. And you sound sane, so I’m curious; what are they?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    The only reason I don’t respond now is that I refuse to derail these posts. Let’s just say it’s not easy for a person to change her mind over long-held beliefs. esp when you think about both and all sides. We all have stubborn points, I did say I was willing to listen. 

  • AnonymousSam

    The problem is not understanding why an other side exists. That’s why there’s genuine curiosity here. You have to understand that the vast majority of people opposed to homosexual rights tend to be the ones who spew hatred and filth about them, thus discourse and exchange of ideas tends not to happen.

    I don’t know that your opinions would change any minds here, but at least it would be possible to get some insight.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    Good points, but let’s just stick to flaming Cheerios (hey, there’s a name for a band!) here. It’s just too good not to run with.

  • Isabel C.

    In fairness, I don’t understand why the other side exists.

    Or rather, I do, but it’s “Because people are vile bigots.” I have yet to hear anything that contradicts this. (And no, “but some of these vile bigots are really nice to their family and orphans and puppies and orphaned puppies” does not.) 

  • OriginalExtraCrispy

    What they need to get through their heads is that you can be nice without being good. I’m sure most of those homophobic bigots *are* nice. Most *people* are nice. That doesn’t mean they’re good people, though, and it doesn’t mean they can’t do horrible, hateful, un-nice things.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ mistformsquirrel

    “There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that
    cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just
    comes in to work every day and has a job to do.”

    — (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

  • friendly reader

    You’re so nice.
    You’re not good, you’re not bad,
    You’re just nice.

    and from the same source…

    Nice is different than good.

  • Wesley Bourland

    Completely off-topic, I saw this at Shakespeare in the Park last night, and it’s quite the interesting take on the material.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Most *people* are nice.

    Niceness is merely a means of getting along with other people. It’s a socially adaptive thing. People do it because they have learned that doing otherwise will cause them problems.

    But being not-nice towards people over whom they have power won’t cause them problems — or at least not problems they’re aware of. That’s why niceness towards those whom one sees as equals is completely meaningless in measuring goodness. I’ve worked tons of retail, but didn’t really understand this until my last retail job in a wealthy area. 

    Most of my customers were nice enough. But the wealthier they were, the less chance there was of them being nice, or minimally civil, or not outright insulting. I’d always worked in middle and lower middle class communities before, and was not prepared for the rudeness and insults I and my co-workers were subject to.  I don’t ever want to work retail again, but if I have to, I will make sure not to do so in a wealthy community.

    I think something similar goes on with every form of bigotry, not just classism*. The bigots aren’t worried about those other people hurting them, so they can hurt those people with impunity, and not just by hate speech and violence. Taking away peoples’ basic rights hurts them on a deeper level than calling them names. Why do it? Because  they feel they’re better than those other people. They can smile and make jokes and say they want to keep everything civil, but that’s what it comes down to — a rung on the hierarchy above someone else.

    *Before people assume those wealthy jerks were Republicans: classism is a massive problem in the SJ movement as well.

  • AnonymousSam

    That is the only assumption I’ve had to work off of as well, with varying degrees of how vile said bigotry manifests. I’ve never heard a well-reasoned, logical outline of why anyone believes homosexuals should not have rights. I find it difficult to believe it can exist, and not receiving answers to my questions is not helping.

  • http://heathencritique.wordpress.com/ Ruby_Tea

    “You’re willing to listen to the arguments supporting it, Ann? Good. Now, what are the arguments *against* it?”

    Bumping in case Ann Unemori is still reading, because I would like an answer to this one, too.  Honest curiosity on my part, too: why be against gay marriage?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    I refuse to answer on the grounds that it would distract us from the real concept at issue here: FLAMING CHEERIOS.

  • Isabel C.

    Really?

    *Really*?

    Okay, here’s the thing, and it’s not really a hard concept:
    If you don’t want to talk about something, because it would derail a thread or you don’t want to have the argument or whatever, DON’T BRING IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE. 

    Popping on to say “Oh, I don’t believe that a class of people should have the same civil rights as others, and I’m not going to tell you why, and don’t insult me for it, HA HA FLAMING CHEERIOS” is hurtful, obtuse, and intellectually dishonest. Knock it the fuck off, lady. 

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Flaming Cheerios are not the real concept at issue. Homophobia is the real issue. The more you dodge it, the dodgier you look.

  • OriginalExtraCrispy

    You can’t say something cruel and then expect the people to whom your cruelty is directed to just let it go because you don’t want to be uncomfortable. 

    You’ve decided it’s perfectly acceptable to publicly declare your opposition to giving one group of legal, consenting adults the same rights and privileges the rest of the population of legal, consenting adults share. If you’re willing to declare that publicly, you owe it to them to look them in the eye, virtually speaking, and defend that position.

  • Tricksterson

    Well, Santana gay and Brittany is bisexual, and Kurt was a Cheerio for a short period.

  • http://heathencritique.wordpress.com/ Ruby_Tea

    Um.

    You brought it up, and several people asked a perfectly civil follow-up question.  (Damned civil, I’d say, based on your opinion that people should be denied equal rights.)

    If you want to wuss out of addressing the issue that you raised, fine.  At least it makes it easy for me to decide that nothing you have to say need be taken the slightest bit seriously.

  • Baby_Raptor

    You openly state that you support treating a chunk of the population as subhuman and that you prioritize good tasting food over treating people as people, and then you ask to not be insulted? 

    Sorry, no. It doesn’t work that way. You get what you give.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    I knew I was setting myself up for this. 
    Actually I was very surprised there were no protesters outside of the local Jack-Chick-Fil-A. 
    Very short answer: I fear every person has some detail s/he enjoys, one that’s not accepted by one’s friends/family. 
    Rebuttal: So why not let Cheerios be a rallying point for homosexual couples?

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    I can think of gayer cereals: Fruity Pebbles, for one…

  • SisterCoyote

    Just as a point of practicality – there’s not much of a need for a ‘rallying point’ product anymore. Oreos, Betty Crocker(?), Google, Amazon, Starbucks, General Mills… the world is waking up to the fact that people deserve equality in civil rights. The people who don’t believe in equal rights may need a rallying point; as has been mentioned, theirs is a dying view in that it is rapidly becoming socially unacceptable to be anti-LGBTQ rights.

    We don’t need to scream brand names. I think ethics is enough of a rallying point to stand on.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    No, not Oreos. One look at that mega-stack, and the imagined sugar rush just makes me want to go Blaauugghh!

  • JayemGriffin

    What if you’re *mumblemumble* years old and still have the What-If-I-Set-THIS-On-Fire impulse?

  • PJ Evans

     Once in a while I’ve given in to it. usually because I have something that needs to be gotten rid of, and it can be burned, and I have a safe place in which to do so. (Although I’m still not sure that burning the giant sparklers qualified as safe – but they were fun to light. (Magnifying glass, patio, sunny afternoon….))

  • Donalbain

     It’s fine if you’re eight years old and have the What-Would-Happen-If-I-Set-THIS-On-Fire attitude, but these are grown men.

    I am a grown man. I still have that attitude.

  • Ouri Maler

    “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another.”

    …Seems darkly ironic.

  • http://heathencritique.wordpress.com/ Ruby_Tea

    “And they shall know we are Christians by our complete inability to control even the smallest amount of fire.”

  • Wingedwyrm

    He wanted to ceremonially destroy a sampling of General Mills product.

    Asside from the “me-me-me” kind of “humility” that shows, asside from the accidental arson, asside from the hubris to think that this will have any effect, whatsoever, on General Mills, asside from the lack of effort to get the kind of numbers to his protest that would have made his protest worth anything, there’s a big problem with ceremonially destroying a sample of General Mills products.

    The problem is that millions of people do that every day.  It’s called breakfast.

  • Ross Thompson

    Edit: Double post.

  • Sindragosa

    I don’t know that non fundamental christians are any better that the Fred Phelpses. You perpetuate and normalize a non-scientific, illogical belief in fairy tales that is the core driving force behind all this hatred.

    I’m sure you all pat yourselves on the back and feel superior to -those- christians, but you’re the grass that hides the vipers.

  • http://deird1.dreamwidth.org Deird

    You perpetuate and normalize a non-scientific, illogical belief in fairy tales that is the core driving force behind all this hatred.

    Don’t know about that. I don’t think my undying allegiance to Red Riding Hood is really making me that hateful.

    (Or did you mean my belief in Jesus? Oh. Well – I don’t actually think he’s making me hateful either. Thanks for your concern.)

  • Worthless Beast

    The world will only seperate me from my book of “The Last Unicorn” and my many “Legend of Zelda” videogames by prying them out of my cold, dead hands.  As for the “believes in” stuff, if I could just snap my fingers and lose my faith/make my brain be what any given person on the Internet wants it to be at the drop of a hat, I wouldn’t be commenting on question-asking and thought provoking blogs like this one. 

    People who think that believers can “just stop believing” right the eff NOW to make them happy need to ask themselves if they can or would want to “just start believing” right the eff NOW to make others happy.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Because no atheist could ever ever be evil, of course.

    Get over yourself. Having a badge that says you belong to this group and not that group and are therefore better than the people in that group is gross. Insulting them on their own space when they’re trying to change their group for the better is particularly gross.

    And yes, I’m an atheist.

    The driving force behind this hatred is not Christianity. It’s hatred. People can find any philosophy they like in the Bible. Certain people choose to find hateful things, others choose to find good things. Claiming that these different groups are the same is gobsmackingly ignorant.

  • http://twitter.com/jinx_mchue Jay McHue

    Your comments are refreshingly reasonable.  It seems neo-atheists like Dawkins, the late Hitchens, etc. are quick to condemn all Christians and the Bible based on the actions of a few bad apples.  (This guy is a parody, though, as I laid out below.)  Truly, people can find any philosophy they like in anything and can use anything along with hate — even atheism (as proven by people like neo-atheist PZ Myers).

  • hidden_urchin

    (This guy is a parody, though, as I laid out below.)

    You made some interesting assertations but didn’t exactly provide any sort of proof.  As Invisible Neutrino said, some bigots affect a lisp as a form of mockery.  Also, it is not unheard of for some religious fundamentalists to take verses so far out of context that, to outsiders, the interpretation makes no sense at all.  You yourself noted that people can cherry-pick to support their own ideologies.  Finally, a lack of detail regarding which radio shows he spoke on is not proof that he is making it up.  People don’t generally list things like that in detail when speaking superficially particularly if there are multiple instances.  It would only be suspicious if he were asked to name specific dates, times, and stations and refused to do so.

    He may be a Poe.  He may not.  What you’ve got, however, is just as much speculation as anyone else.

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ JarredH

     As Invisible Neutrino said, some bigots affect a lisp as a form of mockery.

    And some people speak with a lisp because they speak with a lisp.  Both their sexual orientation and their religious views are irrelevant to whether they lisp.

    As for the passage where he claims that Christians could get drunk, I’d have to watch the video to form an opinion.  (Sadly, YouTube informs me that Leisner’s channel has been suspended.)  Accusing others of cherry picking Bible verses and giving examples of why it is so ridiculous is a common practice amongst self-styled “Biblical literalists,” and for all I know, that may have been Leisner’s intent in the mention video.  Granted, since I can’t say for sure whether that is the case without seeing the video.  However, I’m also not inclined to take Mr. McHue’s interpretation at face value, especially now that I’ve spent a minute or two perusing his Twitter timeline.

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

    A sign of great progress in my therapy: I actually found this troll’s comment cute. I felt like “that’s a very nice drawing, no go do your homework.” The ignorance and bigotry on display is so boring that it did not upset me at all.

    Plus, if you read “Sindragosa’s” comment in the actual Sindragosa’s hammy voice, it becomes especially hilarious.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLhdUBNJkf8

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    After the first sentence, I was expecting some metal. But it just keeps going on and on. Where was the Heavy Metal? 

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

     

    After the first sentence, I was expecting some metal. But it just keeps going on and on. Where was the Heavy Metal?

    The Elite Tauren Chieftans play regularly at the World’s End Tavern in Shattrath City:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISA_nG5smy0

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    You have to admit, Sindragosa knows how to make an entrance.  

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ mistformsquirrel

    You do realize you can apply that same logic to almost any large group of people that encompasses a subset of terrible people, right?  Because there are terrible people who happen to be LGBT, or of African or Latino descent; and you wouldn’t say something that bigoted about those groups.

    And no, don’t give me that ‘religion is a choice’ bullshit – some of us lose faith, some of us never really had it to begin with – but for someone who grows up in it and really believes, there really isn’t a choice.

    All your doing is pulling the same crap they do – you’re trying to oversimplify a problem* because you don’t want to deal with the nuance; in this case that there happen to be a broad spectrum of religious people who vary from quite evil to pretty awesome (like Fred).

    Speaking of Fred specifically – this is a guy who explicitly uses his faith to combat those very hateful forces.  That rather doesn’t make sense if we’re working from your perspective that religion and belief in a god is the source of this hatred.  If it were, people like Fred could not exist, yet clearly they do.

    Besides,  as an atheist I’m not exactly fond of getting painted with the same brush as anti-theists;  and it seems only fair to me that I likewise not paint all theists with the same brush as well.

    *One more thing:  The problem here isn’t religion – it’s bigotry.  Religion in this case is just used as a mask for it; and that mask also serves to paper over the political motives that stoke that hatred in the first place.  Were there no religion, bigotry would still exist – the excuse used to try to legitimize it would be the only thing to change.

  • AnonymousSam

    Protip: Learn to choose your battles more carefully. Once you define everyone who practices a religion as equal in value to a man who preaches hatred of people, you’ve just committed a logical fallacy that won’t win you many friends among Christians or atheists… or much of anyone else.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Irony is my favourite elementy.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Speaking of setting things on fire with a probable religious motive:

    Missouri Islamic Center Burned to the ground in a possible hate crime

  • Isabel C.

    ObTrollCanFuckOff: Troll, fuck off and die please.

    Gdwarf  and Julian: Heh. As an author? I would fucking *love* for the fundies to start burning my books en masse. First of all, free publicity, and second, hey, sales. 

    Lurker: I don’t know.

    I mean, I’m not a Christian. And I don’t really get staying with things or people whose opinions are that vile–other than perhaps the odd Fox-watching grandparent. I’m generally harsh: if someone was to ask what to do about their friends who were homophobic or libertarian or whatever, I’d say get new friends.

    On the other hand, I’m not everyone. I’m pretty willing to cut people off, and not everyone is. Change from within is possible, I suppose–it’s not something I’ll hold my breath for or even spend a lot of time on, but it’s happened in organizations before. And as long as someone’s vocally disagreeing…we all have to pick our battles, and there are arguably different ways to fight.

    tl;dr: Same question you could ask about any sufficiently corrupt organization, I guess, and probably the same answer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Appelget/100000185646776 Steven Appelget

    Last night I was sure this incident was a Poe.  It was so incompetent, and I couldn’t see anyone  being proud enough of such a fiasco that they would post the video to YouTube.

    Now it looks like if it was a Poe, it was an incredibly elaborate one.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    Some satirical works can go on for so long that it’s embarrassing to go back and admit that you were just kidding.

    It’s kind of like what happened to “Herman Cain”, former GOP frontrunner. It’s pretty obvious that his persona and candidacy were all part of an elaborate Stephen Colbert-style satire who found himself actually being taken seriously by people he was trying to prank. (I also suspect he was behind all of those sexual harassment allegations, as a way of terminating the practical joke without having to admit flat-out that he was just kidding around with the whole thing.)

  • Nequam

    From thesmokinggun.com: “Leisner told TSG that he has previously taught the Bible on radio shows and has done “campus preaching with some notorious right wing Holy Ghost preacher types.” Asked if he thought law enforcement officials might want to speak with him about the General Mills protest, he replied, ‘I suppose it’s possible.'”

    So he self-identifies as some flavor of Christian. (He’s also stumpfuckingly stupid, but we knew that already.

    Oh, and he lost his real estate agent job. I don’t think they make nanoviolins yet to play a sad song for him.

  • Damanoid

    Dear Cheeriarsonist:

    I am intrigued by your tactic of protesting companies that support marriage equality by personally setting a sample of their product on fire.  With this in mind, I feel I should call to your attention that Shell Oil is also a supporter of gay rights.  Please use this information as you see fit.  I sincerely believe that a video of such a protest would draw even more attention than your General Mills video.

    Best,

    Damanoid

  • GDwarf

    Out of curiosity, I can’t be the only one who has this running through their head, can I?

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke
  • Mrs Grimble

     I’ve got this running though my head!

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Burning food rather than giving it to the hungry. I doubt people like this have ever read the parts of the Bible with Jesus in it. Actually, I doubt people like this have ever read the Bible, period. Large numbers of right-wing Christians in the U.S. haven’t.

  • Tricksterson

    I’m going purely on gut instinct here but I’m willing to bet that somewhere in Dueteronomy (which, like Leviticus has a whole passel fo laws but rarely gets mentioned in comparison to Leviticus I’m guessing because there are no passages that can be read as “Gays are horrible”) or Leviticus that there is a rule against unnecessary destruction of foodstuffs.

  • AnonymousSam

    I don’t think there is, actually. Which is good, because in Exodus, unnecessary destruction of foodstuffs is a rule.

  • friendly reader

     Well, if you’re a KJV-only church (and oh so many of these groups are), then you have Deut. 23:17: “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.”

    Many other translations look at the word translated there as “sodomite”, qadesh, note that it means “holy one,” and that both parts of the sentence (in a pair after all) should be more accurately rendered as “temple prostitute.”

    For the former you get two unrelated commands to not have female prostitutes but also no anal sex. For the latter you get a cohesive command meaning “our religion won’t include temple prostitution.” I’ll leave it up to the reader to say which makes more sense.

    The persistent reliance on the KJV as the one divinely inspired English translation of the Bible is a major hurdle in even getting debates on these issues started.

  • JonathanPelikan

    [CONTENT NOTE: Hyper-Colbert-esque satire of a position I have no doubt that scumfucking conservative traitors will be gleefully really defending about a year or two from now.]

    Well if you burn the food you ensure it’s being spent in a way far more important than simply maintaining the life of one or a smaller number of mortal humans. It’s being spent to glorify God! And as for giving it away instead? Well, since money is a primary determining force in morality, poor people are less deserving than other economic groups de facto, so your risk of giving food to somebody who doesn’t deserve it skyrockets! Far safer to burn it all.

    [Okay, it’s over now.]

    I’ve only listened to a few of the funniest or wackiest stories in audiobook format myself, but then I’m an atheist so I suppose that’s ok. Well, and thanks to Fred and other Christian Christians, I do know a few more stories and popular verses, etc. A smattering of knowledge at best. 

    Recently saw somebody very angry that a person was ‘lying about faith’ when they asserted that there are Bible verses in support of slavery. Looked up a half-dozen relevant verses in a very convenient web version of the Bible and bounced the links over. No, I don’t think it helped a single bit.

  • Hilary

    Last week I saw an article about the founder of Amazon supporting gay marriage, to the tune of $2.5 million for the state of Washington.  Google supports gay marriage rights, as does Starbucks.  So does that mean every anti-gay asshole will stop using Google, Amazon and patroning Starbucks? That would be one way to decimate them, if they boycott three gatekeepers to modern civilization. 

    I’m from MN, and on behalf of every sane Minnesotan I want to apologize for the ward of wacko’s that inflict M. Bachmann on the rest of the nation.  I never voted for her nor am I in her ward, but I’m still embarresed by her.  Please consider that we also have Keith Ellison and Amy Klobachar from this state as well.

    Hilary

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sue-White/1605859612 Sue White

    One out of every eight boxes of cereal in this country is Cheerios.

    That many?  Some of them must be closet Cheerios.

  • Worthless Beast

    “This is really the treat now for the homosexuals.” 

    Funny, I thought Cheerios were “really the treat now for the toddlers” and “really the breakfast now for the adults who want to keep their hearts healthy.” 

    I don’t think I’ve met a toddler who didn’t like Cheerios.

  • SisterCoyote

     

    I don’t think I’ve met a toddler who didn’t like Cheerios.

    Next tribal rallying cry: “God hates toddlers!”

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I like Cheerios. I think I will buy more of them. :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

     It doesn’t count unless you take a picture of yourself eating Cheerios and act like the mere act of eating them is a righteous act similar in type (if not scale) to leading the March on Washington.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ mistformsquirrel

    This demands a slow-motion video with Lux Aeterna playing in the background.  Because that’s just how this kind of thing is done >.>

  • Lori

    This is making me chuckle a little because Cheerios are a running joke/mock dispute between my sister and BIL. My BIL loves Cheerios and could probably happily eat one of the flavors every morning for the rest of his life (very possibly another 25-30 years).  My sister says they taste like cardboard and the honey nut ones, BIL’s favorite, taste like honey nut cardboard. She can tolerate the chocolate ones, but only because chocolate makes even cardboard taste better.

    In spite of her hatred for Cheerios even my sister would think that setting them on fire was dumb.

  • MaryKaye

    I think there may be a deficiency of ritual in a lot of Evangelical churches, and the need many humans feel for ritual therefore finds odd expressions.

    Pagans love fire too.  My public ritual group loved to make indoors fires in a cauldron using Epsom salts and 99% alcohol.   I think I have personally made almost every possible mistake with that recipe, leading to:

    –fire won’t light
    –fire burns way longer than expected
    –giant fireball on carpet
    –burning cinders wafting through church
    –flame running up stream of alcohol into the bottle

    If you ever want to do this, here’s the rules briefly:  it must be 99% alcohol and not the similar-looking 95%, and you must NEVER add more alcohol after the fire is lit, whether it is still going (that’s the flame running up stream) or after it has gone out but is still hot (that’s the fireball).  Also, don’t put anything in there but salt, alcohol, and tiny slips of writing paper.  Tissue paper leads to the cinders.

    The fireball was really, really impressive.  Luckily alcohol burns cool and we did not quite set the carpet on fire.  (Also that one was my home carpet, not the church’s….)

    I am personally of the belief that more ritual would be psychologically helpful for many of us, believers and non-believers alike.  But keep a fire extinguisher around just in case!

  • Kiba

    I soooooo want to try that now >.>

    Yes, I too was childhood pyro…why do you ask?

  • Matri

    Yes, I too was childhood pyro…why do you ask?

    Who wasn’t?

    :)

  • Heartfout

    Me. I was a pyrophobe.

  • friendly reader

     The last couple of churches I’ve been a member of have starting using the ritual of lightning a fire at the end of Easter Vigil, and from it relighting all the candles that were snuffed on Good Friday.

    It’s very exhilarating. Fire is one of the best symbols in the human arsenal, and it’s a shame that it gets over-used for its potential for destruction rather than light, warmth, and tasty food.

    ….
    Also, not to feed a troll that everyone’s already been smacking around, but I really hate the meme of “fairy tale” in regards to religion. The word’s not just an unfairly dismissive term (though the only reason we think of fairy tales as childish is because Disney sapped the blood and terror form them), it’s also an ill-defined one. One of the more general definitions people have come up with (including Tolkien) involves them intentionally not taking place in the real world. Most myths in the Bible are intentionally situated in “real” places. Now, there are fables in the Bible that probably were meant to be seen as not-real (Jonah comes to mind), but even then “fairy tale” isn’t right – “fable” is what you want.

    And while I’m complaining about lame atheist-troll memes, the Bible wasn’t written the Bronze Age. The earliest portions come from the Iron Ages and the latest were well into the Hellenistic era. It makes you sound stupid when you don’t know the most basic Biblical scholarship.

    Okay, done with that — did everyone see the Daily Show’s coverage of this? Stewart had a hard time not cracking up on camera.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Also, not to feed a troll that everyone’s already been smacking around, but I really hate the meme of “fairy tale” in regards to religion. The word’s not just an unfairly dismissive term (though the only reason we think of fairy tales as childish is because Disney sapped the blood and terror form them), it’s also an ill-defined one.

    It’s also ignorantly dismissive of fairy tales. Fairy tales kept me going for many years of my life. Magic, wonder, imagination, horror, different characters, different places, history — fairy tales are incredibly important. They’re about who we are, where we were, and where we’re going. They represent our dreams and our nightmares. Anyone who is dismissive of fairy tales has my utmost pity. 

  • Worthless Beast

    Mine, too –

    ESPECIALLY when they do so under a username or user-image of something from fantasy. I didn’t know what a “Sindragosa” was until people pointed it out (I don’t play WoW), but I’ve seen the same kind of ranting around over the Internet by people named “Balrog” or with some magical cartoon character as an avatar.  Sure, they may think they’re awesome because they don’t *believe* the fairy tales they happen to like or they think their fantasy stuff is more “baddass” than “fairy tales” but… eh…

    If one is going to call people evil for “holding to fairy tales” – don’t do it with the username of a magical undead dragon. It makes me hard to take one seriously.

  • Mrs Grimble

     One of the comments of the Holy Bullies post is very telling.  It’s from one of Mike’s supporters (or maybe Mike himself) and includes the line:

    3. Does God wink at sin?

    What the heck does this mean?  It’s obviously some kind of RTC-speak and makes perfect sense to an RTC.    But the poster has clearly never thought that perhaps there are people out there on the internet who aren’t familiar with RTC-speak, perhaps have never even heard this phrase, who just go “Eh?” when they read it.  A teenager almost certainly wouldn’t post entirely in txt-speak and smilies to a general forum, yet RTCs confidently expect everybody to understand RTC-speak – it’s what all their friends speak after all. 
    It’s one more illustration of how tightly enclosed their little world is, and how lacking in imagination they are. Hence we have RTCs like Mike making idots of themselves on the internet.  And they don’t even realise how idiotic they look to the outside world.

  • narciblog

    Cheerios are the treat for homosexuals now? I think there was a memo or something I didn’t get. Do they contain vodka or something?

  • http://formerconservative.wordpress.com/ Formerconservative

    Tim the Toolman Taylor becomes a fundy Christian.

    “To show that the homos are the greatest threat to society, I’m going to set this cereal box on fire.  Care to help me do the honors, Al?”

    “I don’t think so, Tim.”

  • Tricksterson

    Only Tim would have done it with styke.  There wouldn’t be a building left.

  • OriginalExtraCrispy

    I think what we’re seeing here is critical mass before the break. More and more people are realizing that giving gay people the same rights as everyone else doesn’t actually affect them, so the fundamentalists are throwing everything they’ve got at this out of desperation. They’re starting to bail out the ship with a teaspoon now, because they’ve already destroyed the bilge pump, the bucket, and the teacup.

    Right now, today, gay people are getting married *in our own country* and not one straight marriage has been affected by it. And eventually, more people are going to realize it.

  • Isabel C.

    Pretty much, yeah. The phrasing I’m fond of, geek that I am, is something like “When the boss turns red and starts moving faster, he’s probably down to half his life bar.” 

  • Mary Kaye

    If you are invested in the idea that sexuality is an evil, destructive, well-nigh uncontrollable force, and that the way to prevent it from manifesting is to strictly control contact between men and women (Billy Graham’s “never alone with any woman but his wife” rule, Middle Eastern sex-segregation customs)–then you have a huge stake in not acknowledging that homosexuality exists, or at least in driving out or killing all known homosexuals, because their mere existence means your strategy can’t work.  *Any* two people could have a sexual interaction. 

    If you are male and are invested in the idea that males are entitled to sex with those they feel attracted to, regardless of whether the attraction is mutual–you have a huge stake in not having male homosexuals around, because you will naturally perceive them as people who will feel entitled to sex with *you*, i.e. potential rapists.

    Marriage equality is relevant to both of these worldviews only because it is an acknowledgement that homosexuals exist and we aren’t going to get rid of them, but that’s enough for it to be very threatening.

    I think these are both terrible worldviews that abdicate an individual’s responsibility for their own sexuality and victimize others in the process.  But they really exist, and people stuck in them have rational, if not moral, reasons to feel threatened.

  • Isabel C.

    Fair. I classify those particular worldviews under “vile and bigoted,” myself, and I’d question the “stuck in” thing for adults, but yeah. 

  • OriginalExtraCrispy

    “Billy Graham’s ‘never alone with any woman but his wife’ rule”

    I thought that wasn’t because he didn’t think himself capable of resisting the allure of another woman but because of the possibility of him being accused of sexual harassment/having an affair. Similar to the way gynecologists have a female nurse in the room during exams.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Male gynecologists do not have female nurses in the room during exams merely to avoid lawsuits or accusations of “affairs”. There have been tons of cases of male gynecologists assaulting their patients. The female nurses are there for the protection of the patients, not the protection of the gynecologists. And it’s not enough — see the male gynecologist who removed the clitorises of his unconscious patients for one example of this.

  • OriginalExtraCrispy

    Oh, god, I just got cold chills reading that last sentence. I almost did that thing guys do when someone talks about kneeing them in the groin of squeezing my legs together and cringing. 

    All my gynecologists, male and female, have had a female nurse witness. I realize it does protect the patient, but since the nurse works for the doctor/hospital rather than being an objective third party, I always assumed it was more to protect the doctor from accusations.

  • http://twitter.com/jinx_mchue Jay McHue

    Sorry, but he’s doing a parody.  His other videos, along with his lisping, effeminate ways, proves it.  In one of his videos, he facetiously argued that Christians should be drunk all the time by ripping some Bible verses horribly out of context.  Note that he doesn’t actually say which radio station he was on.  This is because one call to any radio station he could mention would prove him a liar.  I’m sorry that people are being so gullible in order to advance their hate and prejudice against evangelical Christians.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    People also lisp in order to mock their stereotype of queer people. Please return to the detainment zone.

  • Worthless Beast

    I think the point of Fred’s post and the discussion is that even if it is a parody, we’ve gotten to a point at which whenever someone does something crazy like this, people just *assume* “Of course he/she/they’re a Christian” and is lamenting that. It’s not the fault of a vast conspiracy of parody-makers that this is how society views Christians, either…

    An example of how parody and real life can look alike: Last night, I discovered that the Weekly World News has a website that’s still up (WWN was a parody tabloid newspaper I used to like picking up at stores every now and again for laughs – if you ever saw a black and white rag proclaiming that Hilary Clinton adopted an alien-baby, that’s the one)… They used to have an opinion-column by “Ed Anger”  who was a right-wing nut who was like a constipated Stephen Colbert on steroids. The column had the character saying the most over the topi racist and sexist things… the WWN website had him “supporting Chick-fil-A” and the really freakishly over the top homophobic slurs (mixed with racism) along with a proclaimation by the charater that he was going to eat every chicken in the world… It was parody, sure, really over the top junk for the sake of humor…. but I grew depressed when I realized the parody wasn’t much different from  “real” stuff said by actual people in the news who actually exist.  

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Jinxmchue from Conservapedia, is that you?  How’re the bans going?

  • http://twitter.com/RyanWithCupcake Ryan

    I almost thought it had to be a parody because no one would be stupid enough to share that video. Poe’s Law strikes again.

  • MaryKaye

    Lliira wrote:  That’s why niceness towards those whom one sees as equals is completely
    meaningless in measuring goodness. I’ve worked tons of retail, but
    didn’t really understand this until my last retail job in a wealthy
    area. 

    My mother was a life-long academic, and her main criterion for “should we elect this person Chair or Dean?” was always “How do they treat the office staff?”  Many academics are nice to their superiors and peers, because it’s useful.  But the good ones are also nice to the office staff and janitors.

    My mother also taught me that if you *are* nice to the office staff, your life will mysteriously become easier.  This is true, but not all of my colleagues seem to know it.  In reality there is no one so lowly that they may not someday be able to help you, but this conflicts with the urge to show your superiority in your nastiness.

    When my household had a break-in a few days before Christmas and the thief took all our presents, the person who, I think, was most comfort to my son was the homeless newspaper vendor at our grocery store.  She was indignant on his behalf in all the right ways, and though we had to turn down her offer to organize a toy drive for him, it really cheered him up that someone would do it.

  • Kiba

    When I was working I was usually employed as a receptionist and I can tell you that if a caller was being an asshole they usually got stuck on hold for a while and if they were really bad then the phone system “accidentally” dropped them while I was transferring their call**. Like the time some asshole called up and randomly asked me (I’m male) if I was called a receptionhim, yuk, yuk. Yeah, his call was accidentally dropped. 

    **It was in my favor that I was always stuck using some buggy old phone system that had a history of doing that anyway.

  • http://www.crochetgeek.net/ Jake

    My mother also taught me that if you *are* nice to the office staff, your life will mysteriously become easier.

    Too true. Academic departments don’t have org charts, but to the outsider’s untrained eye, the staff (who don’t have terminal degrees, don’t sit in on departmental meetings, and are alarmingly underpaid) seem like they’re way down there in terms of importance to the department, somewhere between the graduate students and the particularly nice furniture (what order those two are supposed to be in is left as an exercise to the reader). However, woe betide the faculty member (or even worse, grad student) who doesn’t treat the administrative staff with respect. Oh, sure, there won’t actually be any disciplinary action, but their life can become worse in a million little ways. None of which would be possible if it weren’t for the fact that the office staff really do take care of an awful lot of stuff which it’s easy to take for granted, and they’re a lot more cheerful about making things run seamlessly if you appreciate the fact that that’s what they’re doing.

  • Tricksterson

    Huh, I would think in an essentially subsistance society there would be.  I know that in the Quran there’s a rule against fouling water sources even in war time which makes sense for a desert culture.

  • AnonymousSam

    Yeah, no explanation for that. Then again, they failed to make laws against a lot of things you’d think were pretty self-explanatory, too.

    Still, am thinking of Exodus 29:31-34.

     

    31 “Take the ram for the ordination and cook the meat in a sacred place. 32 At the entrance to the tent of meeting, Aaron and his sons are to eat the meat of the ram and the bread that is in the basket. 33 They are to eat these offerings by which atonement was made for their ordination and consecration. But no one else may eat them, because they are sacred. 34 And if any of the meat of the ordination ram or any bread is left over till morning, burn it up. It must not be eaten, because it is sacred.

    So the answer, clearly, is to get a priest to bless every box of Cheerios…

  • Tricksterson

    “So the answer, clearly, is to get a priest to bless every box of Cheerios”

    Nowadays that would probably be a rabbi and they’d probably have to be Reformed of Conservative.

  • BaseDeltaZero

    Oh, god, I just got cold chills reading that last sentence. I almost did that thing guys do when someone talks about kneeing them in the groin of squeezing my legs together and cringing. 

    All my gynecologists, male and female, have had a female nurse witness. I realize it does protect the patient, but since the nurse works for the doctor/hospital rather than being an objective third party, I always assumed it was more to protect the doctor from accusations.

    I cringed a bit at that.  As for the witnesses… they likely serve both purposes.  Not only helping to prevent abuse, but to prevent even the appearance of malfeasance.  With Billy Graham, it’s probably more towards the second, which, considering the scandals that arose, is a way showing that steps are being taken.(he probably isn’t terribly concerned with preventing misconduct (or maybe he is, in which case, well… I guess taking steps to keep control is a good thing…), but rather with avoiding any appearance of misconduct).

    Huh, I would think in an essentially subsistance society there would be.  I know that in the Quran there’s a rule against fouling water sources even in war time which makes sense for a desert culture.

    That, or it’d be considered so obvious it was unneccessary to note.

    Like the time some asshole called up and randomly asked me (I’m male) if I was called a receptionhim, yuk, yuk.

    What?  That doesn’t even make sense… ‘ist’ isn’t a female term…

  • Kiba

    What?  That doesn’t even make sense… ‘ist’ isn’t a female term…

    It didn’t make sense to me either but I just chocked it up to him being a sexist asshole. I’ve met more people than I care to remember who considered reception work to be women’s work. 

  • Fortuna Veritas

    Ayep. Thanks to whackjobs like that I’m an atheist because I can’t stand any Evangelicals for not having drowned them in the Baptismal Font when they had the chance.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    And now this guy is dead.  

    Wow, talk about fifteen minutes of fame.  

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    Since the original video got taken down, here’s one meanie’s take on it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWm4qQaPpE

  • http://www.facebook.com/desertraider91 Chad Phriday

    I think it’s a safe assumption the the person is Christian. Being anti-gay is a religious thing, particularly the Abrahamic religions. The most vocal and ignorant one of these religions in America just happens to be Christian evangelicals. Rein in your crazies and we will stop viewing you so negatively. It’s really not funny anymore. These guys have gone full retard.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X