"My own mind is my own church"- Thomas Paine

Donohue is one of those people who evoke Clive James' comment on Jane Fonda--that he believed in many of the same things as she, long before she did, but the instant he realizes that they share a belief, he re-evaluates his belief.

Every time Donohue shows up on cable, a Catholic is lost.

Why, whenever I see Donohue on TV, do I expect him to yell over his shoulder, "Stifle, Edith"?

The mega-church phenomenon is disturbing. From my experience, they are very committed to tremendous numbers of ministries and prayer groups that become strong social reinforcement mechanisms for right-wing fundamentalist anti-science propaganda.

Unlike the traditional churches, the mega-churches are unfettered by any tradition or theology that might temper their political bent.

I suspect one of the reasons for the poll numbers is that the churches are becoming too political and have turned "Christian" into a rather politically charged word.

I think the problem is actually reality-based vs fantasy-based world views. The mainline protestant churches have become increasingly Spongified, with a more and more abstract view of morality that is less and less tied to a literal reading of scripture, because, to reality-based people, scripture has to metaphorical.

But this is a death spiral. It throws off the fantasy-based people to the evangelicals, and the reality-based people toward secular humanism. You can see this happening in real time at the Episcopal Church. The official view is that accepting gay people as part of the community. But this requires an abstract interpretation of the breadth of Christ's love for fellow humans, because there is no direct scriptural reversal of the Leviticus/Deuteronomy condemning of homosexuality.

But this makes the religion seem less, well, religious, and tends to drive the reality-based people away as well.

On a related note, there was a conference at Harvard this week about Obama's faith-based initiatives, and what I learned from the HHS director (who is a Bush holdover, BTW) is that not only is there no operational definition for the terms, faith-based, community and neighborhood (the Obama iteration of community initiatives), there are no grantee eligibility criteria - anyone can apply for funds. There are no evaluation methods and no evaluation requirements to demonstrate sound science, no requirements to produce any targeted outcomes, and no safety and quality criteria. So although the abstinence only crapola has been rescinded, there are fundie kooks getting lots of $$$$ for faux marriage counseling which entails counseling women to be subservient and baby producers and using solely the xtian bible as the source of the "counseling". Internationally, it allows countries which devalue women to withhold essential reproductive health information from them so that community "leaders" (read male tribal chiefs and armed insurgents) decide who gets what "education and contraception services", not to mention HIV/AIDS testing and treatment.

Won't the reimbursement-starved primary care physicians love to hear that while they grovel for P4P minimums and ever increasing cost reduction squeezes, the faith based snake oil folks are humming along?

"Some say" that physicians and nurses should just rename themselves the church of healing and go for the gold.

The Pope acknowledged his mistake and corrected it. Healso said he would check further next time, acknowledging the search capacities of the internet. What more do you want? Your bias is showing, Steve.

"The Pope acknowledged his mistake and corrected it.

Did he repudiate the doctrine of infallibility?

"impartial?"
"your bias is showing?" What bias? The pope, with literally hundreds of minions to work for him chose to re-annoint a renegade priest who, along with the Pius X sect, had been vociferous in their renegade beliefs for 25 years. To accept the notion that the Pope didn't know there was a problem with holocaust denial and specifically with anti semitism with this group is to fly in the face of reality. That's one reason why they were excommunicate in the first place. "Uh, I had no idea" is certainly "acknowledging his mistake" though it isn't "correcting it" and, in any event, its a flat out lie. It has to be. And lying, I understand, is "bearing false witness" and its a bad bad thing.

aimai

Its a sign from God! I went from here to SoulPancake and was in the midst of composing a post when who should knock on my door but a Jehovah's witness. I came out on the porch and discussed religion for 20 minutes with him. It was a friendly conversation but I'm afraid I overwhelmed the poor guy. I made my position clear and raised many inconsistencies that he couldn't answer. He made moves towards leaving a couple of times, but was too polite to break it off. When I finally eased off, it was like he hadn't heard a word I said. He raised the specter of a vengeful god coming soon, gave me a flyer and an invite, and beat a hasty retreat.

"William Donohue, president of the Catholic League said he thinks a radical shift towards individualism over the last quarter-century has a lot to do it."

First of all, just the words "William Donohue" nauseate me. But to call the rejection of myth "a shift towards individualism" and to thus reject humanism outright is just plain stupid.

Second, during the past quarter century his own church has been engaged in a religious war in a western European country many people identify with -- Ireland. Add to that the criminal actions of the Vatican with regard to child abuse, and it's not too much of a surprise that people who weren't raised in his religion have even less regard for it now than they did 25 years ago.

Finally, when religious extremism brought terror directly to America, many people saw it was not the content of the attackers religion but, again, the irrationality that is ESSENTIAL to religions founded on patently absurd myths that can so easily turn into murderous insanity.

Mr. Donohue's own "infallible" religious leader recently welcomed back to his fold a extremely racist "bishop" and it's INDIVIDUALISM that's a danger? Give me a break.

I think these numbers still over-inflate the number of Christians. I think a lot of people say they're Christian because that's how they were raised, even though they no longer go to church or even think about religion or their god. And if you pressed them on their specific set of beliefs, they wouldn't give a Christian belief system. But when asked by a pollster, it's the first reaction that comes to their heads because it's an association they were raised to be a part of. I used to always call myself Christian, even though I never actually believed that stuff. It wasn't until I met my atheist wife that I realized there was something else I could call myself.

As for myself, I always tell pollsters that I'm unaffiliated with any groups, including atheist. I think self-identifying as "atheist" is silly, as it involves being a part of a group whose identity only exists as far as they're NOT something else. Christians have an active set of beliefs to hold them together. Atheists only have opposition to other groups. So while I am technically an atheist, I find it pointless to identify myself as one. I also don't identify as being in an opposition to dragons, ghosts, or the Tooth Fairy. All that does is legitimize them and make me look like a weirdo.

Similarly, I used to hangout on the alt.atheism messageboard years ago where we debated Christians and many atheists kept telling the Christians to go away because it was an atheist board and they didn't belong. And I always thought that was entirely stupid, because if we weren't debating Christians, what WOULD we talk about? The weather? Without the Christians there, the place would have been dead. I was only there for the debate, not to commune with fellow atheists. I'd be like forming a group designed to not talk about baseball.

My (very) limited knowledge of religion says that when judgement occurs the only human present will be moi. With that in mind, I would say that unless self appointed religious leaders are willing to somehow stand in my stead, they shut the F--- up.

William Donohue, president of the Catholic League said he thinks a radical shift towards individualism over the last quarter-century has a lot to do it.

"The three most dreaded words are thou shalt not," he told Lou Dobbs. "Notice they are not atheists -- they are saying I don't want to be told what to do with my life."

Hold the phone. Isn't that the central ideology of the conservative movement?

many people do not have as much problem with faith or the concept of God as they have a problem with organized religion, which generally is more cultist and clubby than it is faithful to its own espoused principles. The religious right in particular - more an extremist political party and morality police full of hypocrites and hypocrisy than a religious entity dedicated to helping people is a complete turn-off to anyone with a mind of their own.

I posit that it is less that people don't want to be told what to do, or an increase in "individualism," than people don't want to be told what to do by hypocritical moralizers.

Speak plainly, megachurches are indistinguishable from cults—although I don't find much to distinguish any organized religion from a cult there is some difference between shared belief and enforced communalism.

Little known fact: An adherent of the Baha'i faith (pronounced Boo-Haaa) was a scriptwriter for the movie Scent Of A Woman, who utilized the religion's name as the catch phrase used by Al Pacino throughout the film. You can look it up.

There's a good article in the Christian Science Monitor online about the impending collapse of evangelical Christianity. It seems the evangelicals are on the wrong side of the culture wars.

""The Pope acknowledged his mistake and corrected it.

Did he repudiate the doctrine of infallibility?"

It'd be nice if once in awhile somebody raising Infallibility as embarrassment to Catholics (which it surely is in any secular sense), actually bothered to understand WHAT it is.

The basic idea goes back before 1870 when the doctrine was formally declared, but if you cut through the mumbo jumbo, it simply means that along with various forms of authoritative meetings of officials, a Pope gets to declare What It Means To Be Catholic.

Who could object to that?

Is there any OTHER institution where you guys would be so gleeful to dis, cuz, um, they get to say what they are, rather than you? I'm not a member of the Loyal Order of Water Buffalos, so I wouldn't dis the Grand Poobah for telling Fred Flintstone he had to wear that hat in the Lodge.

I think there have been only three -- count 'em, THREE -- times the This Is The Deal doctrine has been invoked, and only one of 'em since Infallibility became a formal doctrine. All three have to do with the role of Mary -- that is, to BE a Roman Catholic, one has to accept that Mary was born without sin (Immaculate Conception), that she was a virgin when she gave birth and throughout her life, and that she was taken bodily into heaven (the Assumption), i.e.. Catholics are required by authority to believe that her body didn't decay.

There are a bunch of other, similarly authoritative statements about the Catholic faith, as there are about most religions. For example, generally speaking a "Christian" has to believe in the divinity of Christ, although pretty much anything else is negotiable. But if you don't believe in Christ's divinity, it's hard to understand how you could be a "Christian" if the word means anything.

Shouldn't words have meaning? That's all the Catholic doctrine of Infallibility amounts to -- protecting the brand "Roman Catholic".

Most such infallible (THis Is What It Means to be Catholic) statements have been made by various councils of the Church, not by Popes alone -- and taken together, these statements pretty much make up the Church's doctrine.

Folks are free not to believe these, naturally, but CATHOLICS are required to accept 'em, stated by authority -- cuz that's what it means to be Catholic.

It's worth noting that there is a very long list of controversies (the death penalty, same sex marriage, etc.) on which the Roman church cites its authority but NOT with the heavy formal artillery of Papal Infallibility.

It's a secular embarrassment to Catholics, but mostly cuz it is so easy to misunderstand: why play that game?

jhm - exactly! The wingnuts have given religion a bad name.

As I sit here doing my seminary homework and planning how I can afford two more years of school, I have been reading these comments with great interest. I do appreciate the God Machine as a great institution on this blog and an interesting forum.

I agree with the comment that the number of "Christians" is overstated unless you equate Christianity with the common "folk religion" of the U.S. and espcially the south and otherwise rural areas. That is the religion that is flag first, family second, Jesus third and maybe God and Bible in there somwhere as well. Oh yeah, and condemnation of how other people conduct their sex lives (that's definately ahead of God).

I do, however, take exception to the analysis that the mainline is dying out because its ideology can't stand up to the easy answers of the evangelicals on the right and the high mindedness of atheists on their left. The religious right has been sellng this claptrap for years. Mainline churches are losing people because they no longer represent or are part of the Establishment (and God likes that part). And in standing for social justice and speaking out for the poor and marginalized (like say LBGT persons) they become less establishment, they have to fight against the more conservative elements in their (our) midst and they are completely marginalized by the mainstream media, which makes it difficult to get the message out.

Personally, I think the answer is to stop worrying about what we used to be, be faithful to our message (all are the children of God whether they practice it or not, all deserve to be treated with dignity and supported with material goods where they live whatever they believe), learn from this time in the wilderness and kick back against the pricks.

As much as I loath Donahue, he is right to a point. Judeo-Christianity as historically practiced (especially the Judeo part) is a communal religion. People who don't like to be in community (for good and bad reasons) are a bit like square pegs. Is the answer to recreate community around the individual like in the mega-church model? I don't think so, but your mileage may vary.

My path out of religion began on 9/11 and was hurried along by the brain-dead evangelical and christian support for the war in Iraq and GWB. Oh, I still try to love my neighbor, but I'll just practice it quietly on my own without the help of hypocrites and blowhards, thank you very much.

coldhotel @1:42

Thanks for the link to the CSM article. It was an interesting and worthwhile read. I can't help but hope the author is correct.

I Baha'i next to Hawaii?

Here's a thought. Take a long hard look at the Hubble wide field scan

Here's a good one here:

http://northtron.fuzy.org/mt/2008/08/08/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_Black_point_edit.jpg

Then tell me everything you think you know about God and religion. --Yawn....

"..tell me everything you think you know about God..".

Big white guy, stern scowl, long white beard, wears robes, lives in the sky.

Oh, yeah, under no circumstance should you piss him off. He's got a mean streak and an elephant's memory.

First of all, just the words "William Donohue" nauseate me.

Amen. The idea that creep is the go-to guy when the media wants the Catholic viewpoint is ludicrous. He speaks for very few Catholics in this country.

Concerning the over-inflation of people calling themselves Christians, I found this interesting:

Only 1.6 percent of Americans call themselves atheist or agnostic. But based on stated beliefs, 12 percent are atheist (no God) or agnostic (unsure), while 12 percent more are deistic (believe in a higher power but not a personal God).

I know from personal experience that a helluva lot more than 1.6% of the country is atheist/agnostic, but these numbers get thrown around a lot, usually by people arguing that we are a Christian nation. 24% not believing in a personal god conforms a lot more to my experience.

Wrong. Watching Christianity turn malignant made us drop the phony Jesus baby-talk. You blew it, assholes. We're not going to spare your infantile sensibilities anymore. There is no fucking god.

Howling Void - Why the belief system? You can only accept on faith that there are no gods. Why bother? I say, to each his own. If someone says that the only reason they don't rape dogs is because they fear eternal punishment, are we in any position to doubt them? I see no reason why disbelieving in gods has anything to do with attacking others for believing.

Science is about knowledge. You can't know that gods don't exist, so there's no point in claiming that they don't. It's best to just abstain from adopting any position and hope that others are as tolerant of us as we are of them.

Since 'God' is essentially indefinable (ask anyone), it is the ideal god-given cover for everyone who chooses to impose their views on others. When logic and reason fail to persuade, almighty 'God' is invoked to justify any crackpot theory or scheme zealots are fixated on. This is the God fraud many confused and helpless people fall victim to. That fewer Americans are now identifying themselves as Christians suggests that people are getting wise to the game that is being played on them. It's still a high percentage, but the trend is encouraging.

Doctor Biobrain put his finger on an interesting paradox that simply calling oneself an atheist does not solve the God problem, which he now avoids by defining himself as unaffiliated. Another possibility is to describe oneself as non-theist, which has the benefit of not involving God at all.

There is another insidious fallacy propagated by the God people. They imply that if you don't believe in God you are unspiritual, and possibly even in some way immoral. The alternative to a belief in God is not obligatory secularism. To the contrary, one can have a highly developed spirituality without any need to involve a creator God.

I wish the discussion about religion, spiritually and moral conduct could be elevated beyond partiality, righteousness and denigration. Righteousness is not virtue, evil is not external, and non-believers are not inferior.

I don't believe these statistics reveal the reality of religious evolution. People don't like being 'classified'. So many say I'm not "that" kind of Christian so I guess I'm not Christian.

The survey suggests that if one is "spiritual" or practicing spirituality they cannot be classified as Christian when they are as much Christian as any other religion as being spiritual doesn't exclude Christ just Christianity as a religion.

Even American Indians hailed a Great Spirit for guidance, protection and gratitude.

It's a classification problem these surveys can't seem to resolve. Maybe they should ask what people are not rather than what they are.

Good prayer. "Thank you God for allowing me to awake to another day of life. Spirit of God, Holy Spirit please guide me, direct me and protect me today".
I don't believe in Pat Robertson or the Family research council or Mega churches, rapture, or a government by religion. But I got no problem with the words of Jesus. I'm just not that kind of Christian...so I guess that makes me not a Christian huh.

btw...if you haven't seen this Religion 101 Exam,
not only is it funny but thought provoking and insightful as to how we grow up with background thoughts. Her's the link...

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/guestessays/religion101.html

If their nonsense was harmless eccentricity it would be one thing, but this phony Christ now backs all kinds of genocidal manias, fucking altar boys, and anything else a sick phony could want. Can't know that god does not exist, what a bunch of crap, the burden of proof is not on me - I'm not the one making ludicrous claims for some boyfucking, wogbombing authority figure. They will simply use your fair-minded consideration to stuff Jesus up your ass because you fail to distinguish between Christians and ethical people. They are two very different things and must be treated differently.

Can't know that god does not exist, what a bunch of crap, the burden of proof is not on me - I'm not the one making ludicrous claims...

Sorry Howling, but you now HAVE made a ludicrous claim. Your mistake was in taking the "strong" atheist position of stating that there are no gods. That's a claim which you can't possibly prove, which is why you shouldn't have made it. If you claim that there are no gods, the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. I, on the other hand, abstain from having an opinion on the existence of gods, so there is nothing to prove. That's the more sensible position.

And frankly, I've never understood the point of the hostile anti-religious stance. It will only backfire and make them more firm in their beliefs. Christianity has a victim complex in its core, so I see on reason in indulging it. It's better to just abstain from adopting any position. After all, there really might be some god(s) that created us and then you'd be wrong for saying there isn't. Why be wrong? Why care?

The reality is that we all have our own belief systems of our own creation and some people have decided to believe that a god gave them these beliefs. But in the end, they're no different from us and just as there are immoral atheists, there are immoral Christians. This isn't about a god at all, so why antagonize them by attacking a god you don't believe in? The sooner atheists get out of the anti-Christian business, the better. Religion is dying on its own. And creating more conflict with Christians only gives it more reason to exist. We need to make it irrelevant, not angry. And we're hypocrites to demand tolerance from them if we refuse to be tolerant of them.

I may well have read it here a couple of months ago, but it bears repeating: "I'm a militant agnostic. I don't know, and neither do you".

Hey God, fuck you. If you're so fucking omnipotent, strike me down right now, asshole. Ha. Pussy. Tickticktickticktick... HA. Still here! Q.E.D. That is how they weaned the heathens off Baal, as you know, with ridicule, not formal logic. Only a fool would treat irrational atavism as if it were a reasoned opinion - unless you want to go through the same rigamarole with every loon who gets abducted by aliens or ordered around by his neighbor's dog.

And fuck tolerance. If some guy quotes Mein Kampf to me about what's got to be done about the Jews, then I have a rebuttable presumption that he's an asshole. If some guy quotes me a book about leveling Sodom because they're homos or sluts or something, I have a rebuttable presumption that he's an asshole.

Howling, you're missing the point. For one thing, YOU'RE not particularly important. Your QED speaks more to your insignificance than to divine impotence, yanno.

For another, you'd probably be better off reading the Book of Job -- actually READING it -- rather than second or third hand 'understanding' of the most common Biblical stories: the cities of the plain, for folks who don't like gays (or don't like the Bible), and so on. That's like the Cliff Notes for Hamlet: you're not seeing it performed, the way it was meant to be.

There are LOTS of stories in the Bible that are deeply disturbing, so they don't get a lot of play -- the Bridegroom of Blood, f'r instance. (Most folks know that the Bible says that God chose Moses to lead the Israelites out of slavery. Somewhat fewer folks know that on the way to do that, God tries to KILL Moses -- and even more disturbing, the Almighty .... fails.)

The point is, believer or no, it's not only ignorant, it's unintelligent to sell the Bible short: any work of literature that has thrived for 4,000 years has a certain degree of merit.

Go look. For example -- when is the first time the word "love" appears in the Bible? Adam is not said to love Eve, nor God to love either of 'em, made his His image though they are. Adam and Eve are not said to love Cain and Abel. If God loves Noah, the Text doesn't say so. When does the word "love" first appear?

Check it out. There's a LOT more in the Text than ya might think -- and none of it depends on faith, exactly, no more than you have to root for the Yankees to appreciate how good Jeter is -- or, for that matter, to wonder if his range at short is what it used to be.

I'd recommend Job in particular, partly because it is one of the oldest stories in the Text. Most scholars think it long predates the compilation, but without the Voice from the Whirlwind scene at the end.

It's an interesting question WHY Job is, and has always been part of the Text. For anybody of faith, it is a profoundly disturbing story -- while for folks like you, who dismiss faith, that just begs the question: why did they keep it, when it would have been so much simpler and more consistent to cut it out?

The basic story of Job ought to be well known: God and the Adversary make a friggin' BET with Job's happiness, including the lives of his kids. The Adversary says Job only praises God because he is prosperous. God says no -- take away his wealth, and he will stay praise My Goodness. So the Adversary takes it all away -- and, so far, God is winning. So the Adversary says, well, that's just because Job still has his health. God ups the ante -- Job winds up covered with boils, sitting in the ashes of his house, scratching himself with broken pottery.

But he still won't say anything against God -- "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the Name of the Lord..."

And then comes the kicker, probably the most important crisis in literature (and the mirror image of your own): Job's friends tell him, well -- the only reason you could be suffering is because you have sinned.

But Job refuses to accept that. He defies a whole series of priests who come to him with different versions of the idea that God couldn't possibly have done what we, the readers know God did -- caused Job to suffer through no fault of Job's own.

MacLeish did a brilliant take on this in his play about Job: "This truth I heard in a yellow wood/if God is God, he is not good/If God is good, he is not God/Take the even, take the odd."

And in the book of Job -- that's when God shows up:" shut up, he explains"....

which is where most folks miss the point. You should read it, Howling -- and see if YOU can get it, cuz it's right there.

(wicked smile) And it's almost certainly not what you think.

The good news: prayer, secular or otherwise is already permitted in public. The bad (good) news is you get to keep it yourself and whomever you might be praying to. Civilization actually created places where people who feel the need to pray in groups to pray to whomever; we call them by many names: churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, shrines, etc. But the football game, the rotary luncheon, the daily opening of Walmarts, or the convening of US congress or not on the list. So its OK by me to drop this issue specifically and generally.

Isn't the Catholic League what Kathy Griffin calls "a dude with a computer"?

If you people could accept it as clever mind-fuck fiction, that would be fine. It would be diverting and thought-provoking, like Total Recall, especially if you got high, I bet. But you have to take its lack of consistency, coherence, completeness, or factual accuracy and run with it, use it to justify whatever the fuck you want to do, let's be honest. As a guide to life it's most useful for phonies and that is why we find so many phonies pushing jesus. That is what the Bayesian priors say, if you want to be inductively logical about it. P(Phony|Christian)>.85

LOL -- the thing is, Howling, you literally don't know what you're talking about.

When I was a kid, the only experience I'd ever had with cheese went as far as swiss and cheddar, but mostly it was plain old yellow and white American, the stuff to melt on toast or a burger. So when one evening we had that exotic dessert -- cheeseCAKE -- I wanted nothing to do with it. Like you, the more fool, I.

I was nearly 16 before I saw a cheesecake in a restaurant's dessert display that was so attractive -- covered with cherries, as I recall -- that I couldn't resist: and, man! I felt like a dope for all the chances I'd had to eat the stuff, but passed up through prejudice rooted in ignorance.

That's YOU, Howling.

You have no clue about even that handful of Biblical stories, that I noted -- and if I mentioned the snake on a stick, which is the image Christ himself uses when he first reveals his Crucifixion, you'd swim down even further in your own solipist arrogance.

Learn something, ideally from the primary sources, before you refine opinions that are tertiary at best: but that your malificence insists must somehow be independent and even original.

How can that be, when you simply have no clue whereof you speak?

(wicked smile) Well, when IS the first time the Bible uses the word "love"?

That's another thing about rollers, they read the same book over and over and this is supposed to pass for impressive erudition of some sort. Normal mediocrities do it with Atlas Shrugged or The Stand but you don't see them pretending they're all wise and exalted and shit. Really, the only reason your betters encourage you to proselytize like this is that every day many people come to their senses and think, 'Why did I buy into that crock of shit?' Attrition is a problem with bullshit sects. Might happen to you if you ever read an actual book.

Ah right, this is the part where he gets down on his knees and prays his ass off, engaging in the kind of magical thinking any healthy eight-year old outgrows, until he gets into some hysterical fugue state that proves everything for like ten minutes until it wears off and he has to do it all over again, every frickin day and night until he dies and ceases to exist, just like me. And really, who needs you around forever, How fucking egocentric is that? Talk about a meaningless existence.

"As the economy goes downward, I think people are going to be drawn to religion." [Tony Perkins, Family Research Council]

At least Tony didn't say anything about people being bitter ... folks might have been pissed.

howling void strikes a chord with me. It's a personal thing, of course, but he says what I want to say with an energy and directness which I admire. It's how I'd like to be able to express myself, but have become too staid after years of la grande politesse. What's more, I agree whole-heartedly with his comments.

LOL -- and you're comfortable with THESE folks as your prime audience, there, Steve?

Howling (much less Goldilocks) are ignorant -- and proud of it. And the best part is that they project and even brag about their ignorance, as if it is scope.

Actually knowing what you're talking about -- whether it's religion, Marxism, credit default swaps -- doesn't necessarily make you a believer. But it DOES help qualify you to have factual opinions.

Of which, you ain't got none.

(snickering) One last time, just to prove the re-doubled point: when is the first time the word "love" appears in the Bible?

In the old days I would be inclined to let it slide. That was before bigots and ignoramuses whipped out the jesus sock puppet and shook it around and made it talk in a squeaky puppet voice and tell us we have to dismantle the constitution, starve a million people and strew corpse chunks around Eurasia. Love. You fatuous pedant. Nobody gives a fuck what's in your pernicious hypocrite's manual, least of all the rollers. The next time I open your bullshit book it will be to take a big greasy dump in it and squash it closed.