November 30, 2005

To counteract my previous post on the SBC

Though, I will add, that I read in a recent post by Al Mohler, where he argues that couples who choose to not have children are sinning. He said, "I would argue that it [not having children] ought to be falling short of the glory of God. Deliberate childlessness defies God's will..."

Wow do I feel bad. After all, people like Mohler achieve the glory of god by procreating. I didn't realize it was so simple. Seems like there is even a Bible verse about all of us falling short. Hmm. Evidently, Mohler has found a way around it.

But back to my other post: Robert Reich has a great post on the odd bedfellows of anti-evolution and pro-Social Darwinism. Hat tip to Carlos at Jesus Politics.

"The only consistency between the right’s attack on Darwinism and embrace of social Darwinism is the utter fatuousness of both. Darwinism is correct. Scientists who are legitimized by peer review and published research are unanimous in their view that evolution is a fact, not a theory. Social Darwinism, meanwhile, is hogwash. Social scientists have long understood that one’s economic status in society is not a function of one’s moral worth. It depends largely on the economic status of one’s parents, the models of success available while growing up, and educational opportunities along the way.

A democracy is imperiled when large numbers of citizens turn their backs on scientific fact. Half of Americans recently polled say they don’t believe in evolution. Almost as many say they believe income and wealth depend on moral worthiness. At a time when American children are slipping behind on international measures of educational attainment, especially in the sciences; when global competition is intensifying; and when the median incomes of Americans are stagnating and the ranks of the poor are increasing, these ideas, propagated by the so-called Conservative Movement, are moving us rapidly backwards."

Another link from Carlos led me to a special issue on the religious right in Mother Jones. This blog asked the question why conservative christians were so closely linked to big business and found a pretty convincing answer in MJ.

American churches are to a large degree defined by what they choose to rebel against. The Christian right has set itself in opposition to liberal, secular government and, as a political consequence, declared itself a buddy of big business. The alliance of those two makes historic sense: sects since the Puritans have positioned themselves in relation to capitalism, and couched virtue and sin in commercial terms. And it makes psychological sense: churches that see themselves as bulwarks against the evils of the flesh find colder, sexless endeavors like business and sports more congenial than the suspect domains of sensuality and art.

The conundrum is: the alliance between religion and business makes no religious sense. What will happen on the day American Christians wake up to realize that capitalism is economic Darwinism, that free enterprise is code for individualistic amorality, that the marketplace is the temple of secular humanism? Will they then shift their allegiance to support a more liberal ideal of communal responsibility, and perhaps even become fans of government? The prospect of that shift in religious awareness is one of the great reservoirs of latent energy in the nation’s political landscape.

Both articles, it seems to me, speak to what has always seemed perplexing. Why do so many conservative Christians who see evolution as harmful and wrong, ignore the economic darwinism of capitalism?

Greg is right

Baptists on patriarchy.

November 28, 2005

Interesting bit on Rick Warren and the "cellular" church

Hat tip to Anglican for this extended take on Rick Warren and his style of church. There is a lot here. Some I hate, like Warren getting his entire church together in a baseball stadium (complete with hot dog vendors) and then hamming it up in front of tens of thousands of people. All of that bugs me--the mixing of commercial and the sacred; the sense that it is just more entertainment; and the huge sense of the "cult of the personality" that people like Warren cultivate and embrace. I don't trust that particular "cult" especially when it comes to religious issues.

But there are aspects here that are intriguing. The sense that (like the Communist party) these huge mega-churches split into smaller cells--small groups of community. Warren facilitates and encourages that. These small groups meet together, pray together, and become very close friends for emotional and spiritual support. I like that idea, but don't like the idea of being directed by a giant ego like Warren to accomplish that.

For all the positives, I am just not sure this is church. They give a lot of money. They raised money to feed the homeless in Orange County for 40 days. That is a good thing. But, like the rest of evangelical Christianity, their theology seems pretty thin and their willingness to address the roots of poverty (beyond some vapid statement that poverty is caused by people's spiritual sickness) is non-existent.

But this caught my eye the most--for obvious reasons. Let me quote extensively:

Not long ago, the sociologist Christian Smith decided to find out what American evangelicals mean when they say that they believe in a "Christian America." The phrase seems to suggest that evangelicals intend to erode the separation of church and state. But when Smith asked a representative sample of evangelicals to explain the meaning of the phrase, the most frequent explanation was that America was founded by people who sought religious liberty and worked to establish religious freedom. The second most frequent explanation offered was that a majority of Americans of earlier generations were sincere Christians, which, as Smith points out, is empirically true. [not sure I buy that. The "majority" of Americans in Colonial America ignored indigenous peoples and overlooks how those "sincere" Christians were enslaving Africans] Others said what they meant by a Christian nation was that the basic laws of American government reflected Christian principles-which sounds potentially theocratic, except that when Smith asked his respondents to specify what they meant by basic laws they came up with representative government and the balance of powers.

"In other words," Smith writes, "the belief that America was once a Christian nation does not necessarily mean a commitment to making it a 'Christian' nation today, whatever that might mean. Some evangelicals do make this connection explicitly. But many discuss America's Christian heritage as a simple fact of history that they are not particularly interested in or optimistic about reclaiming. Further, some evangelicals think America never was a Christian nation; some think it still is; and others think it should not be a Christian nation, whether or not it was so in the past or is now."

As Smith explored one issue after another with the evangelicals-gender equality, education, pluralism, and politics-he found the same scattershot pattern. The Republican Party may have been adept at winning the support of evangelical voters, but that affinity appears to be as much cultural as anything; the Party has learned to speak the evangelical language. Scratch the surface, and the appearance of homogeneity and ideological consistency disappears. Evangelicals want children to have the right to pray in school, for example, and they vote for conservative Republicans who support that right. But what do they mean by prayer? The New Testament's most left-liberal text, the Lord's Prayer-which, it should be pointed out, begins with a call for utopian social restructuring ("Thy will be done, On earth as it is in Heaven"), then welfare relief ("Give us this day our daily bread"), and then income redistribution ("Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors"). The evangelical movement isn't a movement, if you take movements to be characterized by a coherent philosophy, and that's hardly surprising when you think of the role that small groups have come to play in the evangelical religious experience. The answers that Smith got to his questions are the kind of answers you would expect from people who think most deeply about their faith and its implications on Tuesday night, or Wednesday, with five or six of their closest friends, and not Sunday morning, in the controlling hands of a pastor.

Interesting. This does suggest that many people follow Bush because he speaks the code, but does not explain why they continue to follow him. And, I must say, I am not sure I buy that these answers reflect deep thinking. If studying the socially radical NT as much as these people do doesn't call you to at least question capitalism, then I don't see much depth. That it calls them to have concern for their fellow humans? I like that. And I respect that these people are dedicated to their church--hell, they are willing to pay a lot to have a giant church that looks like a college campus. But I am just not sure that is church.

November 24, 2005


Today we give thanks for all that we have. We all know how fortunate we are in a world of hunger and pain. "Thanks" does not seem to cut it. We are lucky and fortunate to be where we are.

November 21, 2005

Well, what do you know?

I am not sure about his motivation here, especially since his VP has continued to pillory opponents, but I am glad to see this:

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," the president said. "I heard somebody say, well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position. I totally reject that thought. This is not an issue of who's [a] patriot and who's not patriotic. It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."

November 19, 2005

Nice moment

This tickled me. Sitting around with SOF listening to music. looked over and she was singing along to Wilco's "Shot in the Arm." Singing with great relish, I might add.

If you knew her when her music tastes were not nearly this good....

Anyway, it makes for a nice evening.


Watching the news lately is hard stuff. Cutting taxes and cutting programs for the poor. Then John Murtha calls for our withdrawal from Iraq. I am not sure he is right. In fact, I fear that Bob Kerrey has it right when he says that if we do that we communicate to our enemies that we are a paper tiger. But Murtha is no coward, and is articulating what a lot of people think.

But nothing bothers me more than the Republican response. People who used to support military veterans now just simply denounce a man who fought in the Korean and Vietnam conflict, was awarded a Bronze star and earned Purple Hearts. This man is hardly a coward and Republicans who say that should be ashamed. Especially since not one of them actually served. This has all the earmarks of a Rovian move. People disagree with you? Call them cowards or unpatriotic. Say that they don't support the troops. Shame. Shame.

I was taught to respect people who served. I still do. I have had some very difficult conversations with veterans about policy, but I have never doubted their patriotism or dedication to country. And I have always tried to communicate that to them. I don't really know if I have it in me to serve in the military.

But when I see a Republican like Dick Cheney belittle liberals like Murtha, I wince. When I see a congresswoman like Jean Smith call Murtha coward, I feel a little sick. I think of all those conservatives I respect--who know better. I wonder if they listen to Smith and Cheney and agree or if it bothers them. I hope it bothers them. It sure as hell bothers me.

November 18, 2005

Someone else doesn't care for Cheney

Representative John Murtha, unlike Dick Cheney served in two wars and is a decorated retired Marine, had this to say about our Vice President:

"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

Moral values indeed

During a coffee run this morning, SOF and I heard this story on the budget bill. We have cut taxes on the rich and cut programs for the poor. Evidently, just as Jesus would have done. NPR reports that conservatives are still pushing for more tax cuts. Meanwhile Republicans,feigning fiscal responsibility, have made it harder for people to afford college, participate in foster care, or get access to food stamps and school lunches.

"Name just one religion in the world that preaches the value of asking the most of those who have the least and asking nothing of those who have the most," said Chet Edwards, D-Texas. "Sadly, that is what this budget does."

Exactly. This bill shows where American priorities are right now. Nevermind the man behind the curtain. Nevermind the VP's charges that liberals are unamerican. Nevermind that this Republican House, Senate and White House have created this massive deficit. Now it is time for the least of these to carry the burden, and for the Martha Stewart's and Halliburton executives to get more and more.

WWJD? Evidently, this Jesus would have never fed the 5,000--he would have excoriated them for not working hard enough. His Sermon on the Mount would have exemplified the rich and how much they do for our society.

To say the least, this is not a Jesus I recognize.

November 17, 2005

The death of outrage

I don't like Bill Bennett and find him smug and annoying. But his title works--just not in the way he meant. As I recall, his anger was that Americans were not outraged by the Lewinsky scandal. Mine is that the American people can listen to George Bush or Dick Cheney and not wretch. Consider from Cheney:

American soldiers and marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures - conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers - and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.

This from the guy who had "better things to do" than serve in VN. At one time, Republicans and conservatives would have found that reprehensible--for someone who had never served to use our service people as a political weapon. No more.

November 16, 2005

Something positive

Yeah, I am tired of being angry too. Colson and Bush do that to me.

I decided to treat myself yesterday. After doing yoga again Monday morning and waiting in line to get my flu shot yesterday, I decided to make a Border's new music run. I have been waiting for this cd for a few months now. I am a huge Wilco fan and this live disk is great.

SOF and I were discussing live cds the other day. Some have too much talking. Patty Griffin's live cd has some great music, but way too much talking, and talking that is connected to the tracks so you can't skip them or delete them off the Ipod. Steve Earle's live cd at least separates them out. Others have bad sound or really miss the magic of a live performance.

Wilco's live cd is good. Another great version of "Handshake Drugs," and I really like "Hummingbird." How great is that opening line? "His goal in life was to be an echo."

Great cd and a nice pick-me-up for a tough week.

A few more angry notes

Thanks to those who commented on my Chuck Colson post. They brought up several aspects of our moral crisis. Speaking of that, I read this morning a litany of how Dick Cheney has consistently lied about, well, everything from oil companies lobbying his "energy policy" to the role Saddam played in 9-11. Interesting that while the conservative Christian community brands Bush one of their own, they all seem to just look the other way when talking about Cheney. No one claims he is a man of faith.


Reading blogs this morning, I found this little gem on Shaun's blog:

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) strongly criticized yesterday the White House's new line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that "the Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them."

Says a lot about where our political dialogue is that I am really, really starting to like Hagel. I am sure that we disagree on a great many policy issues, but at least he recognizes the Rovian tactics of this administration are harmful. As Bob Kerrey said the other night on Stephen Colbert's show, the President could have come out and said (on Veterans day) that he made some mistakes, but they were honest mistakes. He could have said that the intelligence was wrong, and he knows that now--that he still believes that taking Saddam out was the right move. He could have urged all Americans to rally behind his effort and acknowledge how angry so many people were. Instead, he applied the Rove bible and attacked his critics as unamerican. Shame.

November 15, 2005

Oops, I did it again

Driving around town today, I found myself listening to Christian radio. I was bored. It was on. The subject for Talk of the Nation was interest rates. So, I flip over to hear Chuck Colson casually lay the blame for the French riots on the fact that the European union has excluded Christianity from its constitution. Well, to be fair, he says that Europe is post-Christian and therefore lacks any moral fiber. In fact, he said that Europe was experiencing a "moral and spiritual crisis."

Don't get me wrong, I see much wrong with Europe. As a French national admitted recently, their social welfare system may well discourage people from pursuing meaningful work. As international partners, they neglected ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, and have been slow to respond to some of the threats in the Middle East.

But that doesn't mean that some nitwit like Colson is correct to belittle Europe for their moral values. They have lower rates of many of the social ills that we lament. Remember this little study? "“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies."

But more important, at least for me, their government leadership has not been accused (credibly) of distorting evidence and intelligence to justify war. Yesterday, Andrew Sullivan and others noted that we have discovered electronic evidence of Iran's nuclear (sorry, "nukular") program only to find that our European allies are not convinced that it hasn't been faked.

And of course, remember that our supposed Christian President has defended torture. Given the religious right's nod for power and own problem with moral relativism, I think it is ridiculous to claim the moral high ground. We lost that the moment we reelected George W. Bush.

Ok, no more Christian radio for me. Promise.

November 11, 2005


Thinking more about music today, I am reminded of how much I love good writing. Reading this blog you may not know that. Much of what I write is quick and angry. That is fine with a blog, but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate a well turned phrase.

The other day, Anglican and I had lunch and we mentioned a poet. I don't remember the context, but it reminded me of our approach to language. I doubt that many of us listen to poets. As the Wilco song puts it: "I wonder why we listen to poets, when nobody gives a fuck" (Ashes of American Flags, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot). Or in Poor Places: "He takes all his words from the books, that you don't read anyway."

Or we do and just don't call them poets. I have tried my hand at songwriting lately. It is hard, much harder than it looks. Not to write a song--that isn't that hard. But to do it well? That is a different story. My one completed song (SOF has heard it) is just fair. I am not happy with it.

But I really enjoy listening to good songs. Some work because the melody is so good and you overlook the lyrics. Or the vocal is so strong that other weaknesses just don't matter. Kasey Chambers and Kathleen Edwards both have that kind of voice--can make a mediocre song really good.

But then you hear a song that combines both--strong and interesting lyrics with compelling music. Those are the songs that remain in your playlist. Musical phrases that seem to always grab me. A little rhythm riff, or mandolin filler. A turn of phrase that always keeps me coming back.


While putting together my playlist yesterday, I missed one song that has really caught me lately. Sufjan Stevens has a very interesting style, and his "John Wayne Gacy, Jr." is one of the more haunting and compelling songs I have ever heard.
"Twenty-seven people, even more
They were boys with their cars, summer jobs
Oh my God

When he hits "Oh my God." Wow. How can a song about a serial killer be so good?

But many great songs have been written about bad people and tragic events. Bruce Springsteen's "Johnny 99" comes to mind.
He came home too drunk from mixin' tanqueray and wine
He got a gun shot a night clerk now they call him johnny 99

Or his "Nebraska."
From the town of lincoln nebraska with a sawed-off .410 on my lap
Through to the badlands of wyoming I killed everything in my path

Or Robbie Fulks' equally haunting "Cold Statesville Ground"
Heed well the tale of William Hayes
Born 35 years ago, and he'll hang today.

I don't know what it is. Perhaps evil is hard for us to understand and these poets can help us. Our artists explain a lot for us.

Friday music

A few of my Ipod's most played songs:

  • Wake up, Arcade Fire
  • The One I Love, David Gray
  • Haiti, Arcade Fire
  • Rebellion (lies), Arcade Fire
  • The Hardest Part, Ryan Adams
  • Handshake Drugs (live), Wilco,
  • The Two Sides of Monsieur Valentine, Spoon
  • Be True, Carrie Newcomer
  • Back in Love, Jerry Douglas
  • Hard Way to Fall, Ryan Adams
  • Lost and Found, Kasey Chambers
  • Democrats and faith

    Listening to NPR this morning, we heard this story on Tim Kaine's successful campaign in Virginia. Even though he is a Catholic democrat, he took out ads on Christian radio, and according to all observers, was able to convince Virginia voters that his faith was an important and valued part of his life. The rest of the story told how Democrats everywhere are trying to figure out how to address this, because most of them believe that they can't just cede the religious vote to the right.

    On one hand, I agree with that. I agree with Howard Dean and Jim Wallis that democratic issues are moral issues. Budgets and the environment and how we take care of the poor are all moral issues.

    But I wonder about Democrats trying to learn how to speak the language of faith. I am still angry that conservative christians have made religious faith a requirement for their political support. I oppose this for many reasons, including the fact that the constitution bans such religious litmus tests, but also because I think the recent past shows just how bad conservative christians are at discerning the faith of their religious leaders.

    After all, if you still defend Tom Delay as a good christian man (as Dobson and most members of the religious right have) then you show just how little you really care about the faith of Christianity, and instead how much you value the faith of the Republican party. SOF made that point this morning, and I think it is a good one. If your faith is in conservatism, then you really don't expect Delay to treat people with compassion or love--especially if his enemies are liberals and democrats.

    Religious faith isn't just another marketing demographic to sell t-shirts and bad Mel Gibson movies. It isn't just another wedge issue to divide people. It is an important part of many American's lives. And politicians, with the help of religious conservatives, are cheapening and using that.

    I understand why the Democrats are doing this, but I would prefer something else. I would prefer politicians who are honest with the people and say, "you want good governance more than you want a televangelist in office. You want people who will make good policy and will act with integrity and compassion and justice. You want people who will treat their friends well and their political enemies with dignity and respect. It shouldn't matter to you if I read the Bible or not--go to church or not." That is what I would like.

    Instead we have Tom Delay and George Bush and their supposed faith. As liberals, we must do better than that.

    November 10, 2005

    Streak does the Yoga

    That's right. Today I attended a Yoga class. I met the instructor at a discussion last week (her husband teaches on campus). I have been experiencing some back pain--inconvenient and annoying, but not really that painful or dehibilitating. But nevertheless, I would like to be in better shape. She recommended Yoga and I thought I would try.

    I am not sure what I expected, but it wasn't that. It was a hard workout that pressed me to the limit. I don't understand how hard it is to remember to breathe, but I needed the constant reminding.

    I enjoyed it, but am typing this blog tonight assuming that my sore muscles will be angry with me tomorrow. I stretched things I didn't know existed. I was the only man in the room, but the 5 other women were very patient and kind to me. I have never been very flexible (even in my gynmastic years) and so this should be interesting.

    If I keep it up, I might actually get some flexibility and a healthier back. Now, if I can only figure out how to tie my shoes......

    Pat Robertson--He isn't just an advocate of murder, he is an idiot

    Remember when all the religious right people patted themselves on the back for rebuking Pat's little fatwah on Hugo Chavez? Well, we shall see if they are as willing now. Pat is now angry that the good people of Dover, PA rejected Intelligent Design in the most recent election.

    Pat not only is mad at them, but he displays his wonderful sense of "theology" in deciding that their vote was not just about education or about science, but was a rejection of God himself! Wow, evidently, if you vote like Pat, you vote for God, ergo God agrees with Pat, ergo do what Pat says and you do what God says. Whatever.

    Anyway, he warned Dover that if they ever need help from God in the future, he won't be there because they just voted him out. Why is it that cities never attrack God's wrath or the removal of his "covering" if they neglect the poor or have racial injustice or environmental disaster?

    In his own, stupid, stupid words:

    I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.

    This Intelligent Design passing as science is one of the signs our education system is in trouble. The fact that an idiot like this has the following he does is more proof and more troubling.

    November 8, 2005

    RLP on depression

    Those of you who don't read the Real Live Preacher (and you know who you are) miss out. Here he talks about his own depression and how it feels.

    November 7, 2005


    Today our President said firmly that "We do not torture," even as his VP lobbied against the McCain anti-torture bill.

    America has long been a beacon. Sometimes not a good one, but we have certainly seen ourselves as a "City upon a Hill," and prided ourselves on our human rights record. Now....

    Let's list the things that America can no longer lecture the world:

  • Poverty (post Katrina)

  • Disaster response (post Katrina)

  • Preemptive invasion

  • Gulags

  • Torture (oops, that one used to be a given)

    Torture. Think about that last one. Our government can no longer, with a straight face, lecture states that have used torture as an interrogation device. We used to chide them. But now... Thanks Dick. Thanks W.
  • November 4, 2005

    Auto shop and physics

    Had a funny and frustrating experience at the auto parts store. The frustrating part was that the headlight in my 13 year old pickup went out. I bought the replacement and then found out (in my 13 year old, and shredded manual) that to replace my headlight, I had to remove the entire front grill. That did not make me happy. Those things are a) held on by little clips that require 6 or 7 arms and the same number of long screwdrivers, and b) little clips that break easily (perhaps especially after 13 years). Suffice to say there was some swearing and throwing of some things.

    After all that, the headlight didn't work anyway, so I had to go to my mando lesson on my bike. Got a few looks, I can tell you.

    But back to the auto shop. The young man who helped me find the headlamp that ended up NOT solving my problem was very nice and helpful. While I was checking out, the person behind me asked about those battery-free flashlights--you know, the ones you shake.

    As it turned out, the auto parts store didn't carry those, which the store employee pointed out. The older gentlemen asked what they were, and the guy behind the desk said, "they utilize Faraday's law of induction. And Led lights."

    He is right, I know. But it seemed above the people behind me. And me. I knew what he meant only because I have one of those lights. And the shaking motion cleared it up.

    November 2, 2005

    this particular Baptist makes me proud

    After the Florida Baptists showed their stupidity, how nice to turn on the television this morning and see former President Jimmy Carter talking about values. It is in vogue among Republicans to mock Carter, and unfortunately also among religious conservatives. The man who did his best to govern with a strong and deep sense of moral and religious values is now not respected by religious conservatives. You tell me, would you rather received the counsel of the likes of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell or Jimmy Carter?

    Often called the best "ex-President" in American history (perhaps JQ Adams might challenge) Carter has lived his faith. He has tried to bring peace to war, and solutions to gridlock. He has been concerned with the environment, the poor, the needy--in other words, all the issues that religious conservatives have ignored in their grasp for power.

    Call me what you will, but I will stand with the likes of Jimmy Carter and be proud.

    Grownup Republican?

    W/ a nod to Sean at Upper Left, this quote: "'I was part of that wild and crazy Class of '94 that shook the political landscape by taking over the House after more than 50 years of unfettered Democrat control. We came to Washington full of ideals and conviction. But sadly, what they say about absolute power is coming to reality in the 2005 GOP Washington. Republicans in just 10 years have developed the arrogance it took the Democrats 30 years to develop.'

    -- Former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK), writing in the Las Vegas Review-Journal."

    November 1, 2005

    Where do you suggest I go?

  • If I am looking for my democracy, where do you suggest I go? To the leadership of the Republican party who uses intimidation and divisiveness to govern?
  • If I am looking for my belief in the goodness of my country, where do you suggest I go? Should I look to the President who hires thugs and traitors?
  • If I am looking for my faith, where do you suggest I go? Should I look to the religious leaders who prioritize gay bashing over feeding the poor? Or who are more concerned about swear words than global warming?
  • And if I am looking to pray, where would you suggest I go? Should I pray to the War God of George Bush? Or can I pray to the Prince of Peace even if he is, like the Geneva Convention, quaint?
  • Just when you think Southern Baptists can not be sillier

    With a hat tip to Mainstream Baptists and Wasp Jerky comes this ridiculous story about Floridian Southern Baptists who refused to distribute drinking water to hurricane victims because it was in cans from Anheuser-Busch! Right, let's let people go without water because you have "religious" objections to alcohol. Those objections (legitimate about alcohol, btw) would make more sense of Anheuser-Busch was distributing beer to hurricane victims.