Satan Controls Us All

Satan Controls Us All January 4, 2012

Did you know that if you advocate secularism or gay rights, you’re a minion of Satan? That’s what a trio of wingnuts — Paul Blair, Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera said on a recent radio show:

Blair: Isaiah talks about in his day and age, and we’re seeing it now, where right is turned into wrong and wrong is turned into right and bitter waters have become sweet and truly we have turned the world upside down. You look at some of the things we’ve got going on in America and you would think we moved into the Twilight Zone. But ultimately all of these forces—the force of communism, the force of the radical homosexual agenda, the secularist movement in America—they all have the same source, the same ultimate conspirator, and that is Satan…

Barber: Proponents of God’s objective truth relative to sexual morality and sexual sin, we’re not as crafty as the Enemy, the Enemy being Satan, what we’re talking about here is Satanic, this is sin. Those who are defenders of sin and who embrace and identify based upon giving into such sinful temptations, they are very good at crafting the language and arguing semantics. If we play by their rules and let them define the terms, then we’re off to a marked disadvantage. Unfortunately, too many people in churches and in para-church organizations and pro-family organizations across the country have adopted the euphemistic language of homosexual activists and it puts us at a distinct disadvantage.

So far, the benefits plan sucks.

"It all makes so much more sense as soon as you realize that 1- they ..."

Trump Doesn’t Think Four Democratic Congresswomen ..."
"I'm convinced vetting alone will never be enough as long as the institution itself does ..."

Philadelphia Firing 13 Officers for Racist, ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • raven

    I’ve never been able to tell fundie-ism from satanism.

    1. Worship a Sky Monster god check

    2. Based on hate check

    3. Based on lies check

    4. Practice human child sacrifice check

    The main difference seems to be that fundie xians exist whereas satanists more or less don’t.

  • Wait, so Satan is fighting on the side of good? What bizarro parallel universe did I slip into?

  • zippythepinhead

    “… and bitter waters have become sweet and truly we have turned the world upside down …” — I thought that bitter waters referred to salt water, or otherwise undrinkable or unusable. So … desalinization is the work of the devil?

  • Is it bad of me that while reading this, I had an image of Dana Carvey’s church lady from SNL?

  • unbound

    I thought “foosball” was the devil…and Ben Franklin.

  • Yes Thucydides talked about the same reversal of values in his day and age, but he didn’t mean what the fammlee valyooz people mean by it. I’ll take him over Isaiah thanks.

  • Mr Ed

    #4 Zippy: If you look at the writings of famed conservative writer J.D. Ripper you will see the theme of water and impurities are very important.

  • DaveL

    Basically they are admitting that they sound like ignorant, lying bigots and gay-rights advocates sound smart, compassionate, and honest. The only explanation they can give for this (other than admitting that they are ignorant, lying bigots) is “magic.” It’s all because a literal powerful supernatural being is working his dark mojo on them. Really.

  • davidct

    What exactly are these terrible sins.

    Communism – A flawed political system that presents an overly optimistic view of human nature. We definitely cannot have a system based on the idea that people are good.

    Homosexuality – One end of a continuum of sexual preference that is found across the animal kingdom. Different but still normal and does not require hurting others – must be bad.

    Secularism – Favoring reality over superstition. I did hear that the reality based community is evil.

    It makes Satan look pretty good compared to that psychopath in the sky.

  • exdrone

    Well, they got one thing right:

    If we play by their rules and let them define the terms, then we’re off to a marked disadvantage.

    Our rules are:

    1. use facts

    2. be rational

    3. think critically

    4. discuss logically

    It really is new territory for them.

  • exdrone

    Wait, they have “para-church organizations”? What are they – special ops fundamentalist insertion teams that drop behind secularist lines?

  • interrobang

    I’m as atheist as they get, but if that’s the choice, better Satan than their version of God. If nothing else, the parties will be better…

  • peterh

    @ # 10:

    The older maps sometimes had the legend, “Here be frightful beasts (of one sort or another).” The four rules you post delineate sound enough territory for many of us, but for others they mark the terrifying territory of reality and reason. For the likes of Blair, Barber & LaBarbera, that does indeed create a “marked disadvantage.” Wonder if they’re capable of recognizing the deep irony in their choice of adjective.

  • cptdoom

    Those who are defenders of sin and who embrace and identify based upon giving into such sinful temptations, they are very good at crafting the language and arguing semantics.

    Yes, and you normally refer to these men as the “Founding Fathers,” and insist that they are demi-gods who could do no wrong. However, their languge and semantics, honed during with Enlightenment learning and understanding, gave us the First Amendment, which enshrines in our most important foundational document the right to sin and to “embrace and identify based” on sin.

    And Blair, Barber, and LaBarbera, heretics all, provide a perfect example of this, as they wallow and celebrate their heresy, lying by calling it “Christianity” and insisting that the rest of us consider them good and decent people for embracing exactly that which the Lord insists we must not (or so the nuns and priests taught me).

  • cptdoom

    Damn typos – “honed with Enlightenment learning”

  • So, fundamentalists think that Satan is behind everything they don’t like.

    It’s a slow day, huh Ed?

  • Doug Little

    I for one welcome our new satanic overlord.

  • John Hinkle

    They kinda really focus on Teh Buttsecks. It’s like they threw in communism and secularism as tokens to make it look like they’re not obsessing over buttsecks. Butt they’re obsessing over buttsecks. Three men. Obsessing over buttsecks.

  • Too bad these guys, and all sorts of other believers, can’t figure out that if their God exists he either:

    a.)Is omnipotent but doesn’t care about this stuff, wants it to happen(and perhaps they shouldn’t interfere), or will only do something about if they beg enough. The latter two, especially the 3rd choice, raise real questions about the whole loving God idea.

    b.)Isn’t omnipotent and somehow needs their worship to get things done. And if that’s the case maybe the whole “Worship me and you’ll live forever!” thing isn’t as iron clad as they think given the decline in belief and softening of the belief that does remain in many. God might not have enough juice these days to keep his all his promises, and has to concentrate on whichever are truly imporant.

  • fastlane

    exdrone, we call them accomodationists.

    Thank you, I’ll be here all week.

    Alright..I’ll get my coat.

  • juice

    I remember when I was about 10 or 11 (about 1985) and was dragged to Jimmy Swaggart’s church every sunday by my mom who was a newly minted gullible fundie at that point. I hated it and it lasted forever so I would just try to fall asleep in the pew for a while. She would get really angry and tell me that it was Satan making me go to sleep and not hear the good word from that nice man, Jimmy Swaggart. So you see, Satan made me hate Jimmy Swaggart and then he made Jimmy do naughty things with that prostitute in New Orleans. Oh that Satan.

  • freemage

    This ‘Satanic Hydra’ image serves at least two purposes in fundie circles.

    1: Obviously, it helps paint all the opposition (most of whom are marginalized groups) as a single, powerful enemy, thereby justifying the persecution complex that is utterly vital to conservative Christianity.

    2: On another level, it helps them deal with their feelings of intellectual inadequacy, while simultaneously suppressing cognitive dissonance. Since obviously, many of these enemies would work at cross-purposes (remember, Islam is one head of the hydra), their apparent alliance (in fundie eyes) is an obvious sign that they are fools being deceived by the Devil; only the Christian is therefore clear-headed. (It’s actually a common theme of some Chick tracts.)

  • heddle

    timgueguen,

    Too bad these guys, and all sorts of other believers, can’t figure out that if their God exists he either:

    a.)Is omnipotent (blah blah)

    b.)Isn’t omnipotent (blah blah)

    Yes, we have never encountered the conundrum regarding the inconsistency between God’s omnipotence and his omnibenevolence. Did you come up with that on your own? (Who the hell was Epicurus?) Thank you for pointing it out. What genius! My faith is shattered and I have been liberated.

  • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    My faith is shattered and I have been liberated.

    Pictures or it didn’t happen.

  • dingojack

    Perhaps, David, you should go on the road and preach that epicurean gospel! It seems a lot of your fellow christians haven’t heard it.

    Dingo

    —–

    BTW Christians that I have tried this out on seem genuinely suprised and puzzled. When I tell them that the Greek philosopher Epicurus thought of it about 2300 years ago, the general attitude is: Epicurus wasn’t a christian, so what would he know? (Although certainly not uniformly by any means)

  • timgueguen “Too bad these guys, and all sorts of other believers, can’t figure out that if their God exists he either:”

    Oh, please. It’s clear from [proof text] that He’s testing them; giving them a chance to be righteous. And what softer path to righteousness is there than one paved with the bared necks of Unpopular Minorities?

  • dingojack

    On a different note, Prof. (or anyone else), perhaps you can help me.

    One often hears the statement: ‘four out of five evangelicals won’t vote for Romney’*, but who exactly are these ‘evangelicals’? What church(es) do they belong to?

    Dingo

    —–

    * does anyone have an actual source for this statistic?

  • Dingo, they won’t vote for Romney. They’ll vote against Obama.

  • Michael Heath

    Modusoperandi writes:

    Dingo, they won’t vote for Romney. They’ll vote against Obama.

    A lesson many liberals in general fail to learn, i.e., sometimes you win by playing defense – politics is not always about offense. In all fairness, some conservatives also want to pout and stay home where Republicans motivate them in other ways, like giving them the opportunity to stick it to the gays by adding amendments to their respective state constitutions against gay marriage.

  • dingojack

    MO – Uh yes. But it doesn’t really answer my questions.

    Dingo

    —–

    PS: I never said I believed or endorsed the idea that ‘evangelicals wouldn’t vote for Romney’, merely that I have heard it oft repeated as if it were true.

  • Michael Heath “A lesson many liberals in general fail to learn, i.e., sometimes you win by playing defense – politics is not always about offense.”

    Liberals threaten to move to Canada. Conservatives double-down.

    “In all fairness, some conservatives also want to pout and stay home where Republicans motivate them in other ways, like giving them the opportunity to stick it to the gays by adding amendments to their respective state constitutions against gay marriage.”

    A rising tide may lift all boats, but for the boatless it’s easier to stack other boatless underneath you. The target of choice changes, but “I may be poor, but at least I’m no X” is common enough that it could be a bumpersticker.

    dingojack “MO – Uh yes. But it doesn’t really answer my questions.”

    My purpose is not to answer your questions. My purpose is to distract you while I steal your silverware.

    But, since I missed a fork, to answer your question: You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know…morons.

  • dingojack

    ‘… you know – assholes’.

    [leaves quickly with silverware while MO ponders]

    🙂 Dingo

  • So, heddle, which is it? Is God omnipotent or not? Does he think being gay is horrible or not? No, don’t tell me, the answer is free will, right?

  • Timgueuen, He’s omnimpotent. You have no idea how much He overcompensates for it. Other gods would take up hunting; He makes the whole damn universe (“Yup. Six days. Don’t mean to brag.” He says matter-of-factly, thumbs in belt loops).

  • dingojack

    MO – but if god had taken one of those little blue pills, creation could have stretched on for a trillion years (or more)!

    😉 Dingo

  • sunsangnim
  • heddle

    timgueguen,

    So, heddle, which is it? Is God omnipotent or not? Does he think being gay is horrible or not? No, don’t tell me, the answer is free will, right?

    What is the “No, don’t tell me, the answer is free will, right?” supposed to mean? That you are so clever you just know that that is the only answer Christians ever give?

    The answer to your first question is simple. Sidestepping whether or not he actually exists, the god of the bible is omnipotent with no paradox or inconsistency. As to whether or not he thinks being gay is horrible, the hate/love anthropomorphism is not delineated over sexual orientation, but over salvation. God “loves” those whom he saves–which has nothing to do with how good the person is, and “hates” those whom he does not, which has nothing to do with how horrible the person is (thankfully.)

    DJ,

    On a different note, Prof. (or anyone else), perhaps you can help me.

    One often hears the statement: ‘four out of five evangelicals won’t vote for Romney’*, but who exactly are these ‘evangelicals’? What church(es) do they belong to?

    I don’t know. I don’t have the pulse of the evangelical voter. This particular evangelical will not vote for Romney–nor anyone else. Politics is not a big topic of discussion among evangelicals I know–and I can honestly say that this season I have not heard anyone say they would not vote for Romney because he is Mormon.

  • Michael Heath

    Here is NYTs article on polling data regarding Romney and evangelical voters: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/us/politics/pew-poll-finds-mormon-faith-is-early-drag-on-romney.html

  • Aquaria

    Oh good grief, it’s heddle.

    Who woulda thunk that this would have been a mating call for Religitardus pompositus?

    So do you have a google search just for the words “christians says” or “christians stupid”? I mean, you never show up on any other kinds of threads, only the ones where people are being honest about your fellow delusional nitwits.

    Don’t you have any other interests other than defending your delusion?

    Any?

    At all?

  • heddle

    Aquaria,

    Don’t you have any other interests other than defending your delusion?

    Plenty. But engaging moronic white-trash bigots like you is not high on the list.

  • “Who’s ‘engaging’?” [/Han Solo]

  • dingojack

    Thanks Michael.

    Dingo