34 Comments


  • Well, I’ll get the ball rolling here again. How the fuck can anyone think it’s a good idea to pass a law saying another law can’t be changed? As if the fucking Pledge of Allegiance is important and immutable than, say, the Constitution. Jesus.

    September 27, 2004
  • Hurrrah!

    September 27, 2004
  • Right: you can amend the Constitution to prohibit flag burning, but trivial laws pandering to the rabid right should be set in stone. Well, at least their position is internally consistent.

    September 27, 2004
  • Hey! I don’t know exactly what you’re cheering for, but I fervently hope it’s our side.

    September 27, 2004
  • pig fuckers

    Now I’ll *never* know what the original “pig fuckers” post contained. Ah, well. >g<

    (Just had to post something with that subject line.)

    September 27, 2004
  • Re: pig fuckers

    I know, I thought of that as soon as I realized the thread was gone, like fucking Atlantis. Worse, the original poster and I had both commented to clarify. Okay, I’m tired now, and I’m going to lie down in a dark room with a cool cloth pressed to my fevered brow.

    September 27, 2004
  • Re: pig fuckers

    Dude, don’t say “pig fucker” in front of Jesus.

    September 27, 2004
  • Hey, we were a more enlightened nation in 1954 than we were in 1789.

    September 27, 2004
  • Hurrah for the post, I think it was… it was before I finished my morning coffee.

    I still haven’t finished my morning coffee. It’s 1:13 PM here.

    September 27, 2004
  • Man, that’s a big cup of coffee.

    September 27, 2004
  • No, it’s my usual 16-20 oz.

    It’s just been one helluva day.

    September 27, 2004
  • Re: pig fuckers

    Um… why? Does he not know what it means?

    September 27, 2004
  • Re: The edited pig-fucker post!!!!

    Just for you, Zoot!

    I was aware that the “under God” phrase was an amendment, and I realize that the phrase is in explicit conflict with the separation of church and state. I would like to see it removed.

    However…I think that issue is secondary to the implication, the continuing implication, that God is being stripped from Christians by Godless liberals. Lawsuits and implied public pressure aside, I believe that the Right is exaggerating the threat in order to Co-opt Faith as theirs alone to defend.

    The Washington Times included this quote from Roy Blunt in their coverage:

    “The great strength of the United States is that we are and will continue to be, one nation under God, despite liberal courts’ rulings”

    No shades of gray available. We are now antichrists. Hence my characterization of sponsors of this entirely wasteful and transparently strategic Bill as Pig-Fuckers.

    I almost wish I HAD used the term against you, Bob. Talk about anti-climactic!

    September 27, 2004
  • Re: The edited pig-fucker post!!!!

    Though the hairless person is a noted libertine, we think even he draws the line at copulating with swine.

    We agree with your reasoning, but we think you should avoid reading newspapers published by religious fanatics with a penchant for mass marriages, tax evasion and hair gel. Yes, however, the religious right’s persecution complex is tiresome: “Oh, they want to takes away our Bibles!” and “Oh, they want to ban prayer!” or “Oh, they want us to stop wearing lime-green spandex pants at the supermarket!” Listen up, you reactionary drool factories: WE. DON’T. CARE.

    September 27, 2004
  • Re: pig fuckers

    The Cow of Squatola was talking to Jesus, who told the Cow of Squatola the following parable:

    A new cowboy rides onto a spread and sees a rancher sitting on his porch with his dog.

    Cowboy: “Hey, cool dog. Mind if I speak to him?”

    Rancher: “This dog don’t talk!”

    Cowboy: “Hey dog, how’s it going?”

    Dog: “Doin alright”

    Rancher: (Extreme look of shock)

    Cowboy: “Is this your owner? (pointing at rancher)”

    Dog: “Yep.”

    Cowboy: “How’s he treat you?”

    Dog: “Real good. He walks me twice a day, feeds me great food, and takes me to the lake once a week to play.”

    Rancher: (Look of disbelief)

    Cowboy: “Mind if I talk to your horse?”

    Rancher: “Horses don’t talk!”

    Cowboy: “Hey horse, how’s it goin?”

    Horse: “Cool.”

    Rancher: (an even wilder look of shock)

    Cowboy: “Is this your owner?” (pointing at rancher)

    Horse: “Yep.”

    Cowboy: “How’s he treat you?”

    Horse: “Pretty good, thanks for asking. He rides me regularly, brushes me down often, and keeps me in the barn to protect me from the elements.”

    Rancher: (total look of amazement)

    Cowboy: “Mind if I talk to your sheep?”

    Rancher: (stuttering, and hardly able to talk)…… “Th-Th-Them sheep ain’t nothin but liars!!!”

    September 27, 2004
  • Re: The edited pig-fucker post!!!!

    tried to post the following in what is becoming The Accursed Death Thread, but lost the post. I’m reposting it here on her behalf. Let’s see how long this lasts before a meteor hits the damn LJ servers:

    I didn’t buy the damned newspaper! Bite your pink sandpaper tongue! I
    looked for paranoid quotes. I think I found a rather nice one, actually.

    It’s tiring, of course, to point and whine about something as obvious as
    religious paranoia. But, really…I mean, really now . It’s
    starting to move too close to home.

    September 27, 2004
  • Re: The edited pig-fucker post!!!!

    I don’t particularly give a shit who believes what, right up until they start codifying their beliefs and inflicting them on me. I was one of those non-Christian, agnostic schoolchildren who always felt uncomfortable saying, “Under God,” but felt I had to do it anyway (sometimes I was gutsy enough to leave that part out) because I didn’t want to rock the boat.

    I can sympathize with people who feel their religious beliefs are being trodden upon, because I grew up that way. I can even get behind the idea that children ought to be able to pray (silently) in school if they want to. What troubles me is the way separating church and state is being misconstrued as taking religious belief away from anyone. I mean, come on — the idea that law should keep its mitts out of religion is right there in the First Amendment. It’s been around as long as this country has.

    It almost seems to come down to the idea that Christians must be able to reserve the right to proselytize.

    September 28, 2004
  • Another Recovered Couplet from the Death Thread

    “Pig Fucker” belongs to Mark- he’s the one who taught it to me, at least. I think he said it when the cigarette tax went up last year, I’m not sure. I’ve always loved it, though.

    I’m still looking for an opportunity to tell someone that they have a “face like a ripped sneaker”, Bob.

    And yes, it would have been tedious! Trust me – taking the position of having sympathy for Christians who have their belief system hijacked for political gain is not one you can make without aligning yourself in some small way- and my need to divorce myself from faith I’ve never had is just too strong.

    So, fuck them. They don’t need me to whine about the emotional manipulation they suffer under this administration- they are on their own!

    Dances with Swine

    “Pig Fucker” belongs to Mark

    Well, Mark is a man of rare expressiveness.

    I’m still looking for an opportunity to tell someone that they have a “face like a ripped sneaker”

    I should have my own line of greeting cards. Really, for all those occasions that the Hallmark cards don’t cover:

    • Sorry your wife left you. You wouldn’t happen to have her new number?
    • Congratulations on your octuplets! Please note that I’ve moved and left no forwarding address.
    • So you’re off to Bible College! Can I have your extensive collection of bestiality porn?

    Trust me – taking the position of having sympathy for Christians who have their belief system hijacked for political gain is not one you can make without aligning yourself in some small way…

    Well, that’s true. I inadvertently started a row in someone else’s blog on this issue. I think a few things about this: for one thing, you have to separate what people actually do from their religious affiliations. I have nothing but admiration for the Catholic nuns who were growing pharmaceutical pot for cancer and AIDS patients, and for the Christians involved in the Sanctuary Movement during the 1980s. Likewise, there are a lot of Christian peace activists, though their voices tend to be overwhelmed by their right-wing co-religionists.

    And that’s the problem: you can use Christianity (or any faith), including the New Testament, to justify seemingly contradictory attitudes and behaviors, as and I were discussing in another thread. To take an example from another religion, you simultaneously have radical Muslims crashing jumbo jets into buildings, and Imams who say that Islam is a religion of peace.

    I think it’s more accurate, and more fair, to judge people by their actions, and by the philosophy they espouse, rather than their nominal religious affiliations. There are Unitarian-Universalists who have more in common with some Buddhist sects than they do with fundamentalist Christians.

    September 28, 2004
  • Re: The edited pig-fucker post!!!!

    It almost seems to come down to the idea that Christians must be able to reserve the right to proselytize.

    Exactly, Keika. I agree completely. 🙂

    September 28, 2004
  • Re: Another Recovered Couplet from the Death Thread

    Congratulations on your octuplets! Please note that I’ve moved and left no forwarding address.

    Heh heh. This one is my favorite.

    September 28, 2004
  • Re: pig fuckers

    Yes!! That’s right . Jeez, I’d forgotten about that.

    September 28, 2004
  • Re: pig fuckers

    It’s a line from the original South Park Christmas cartoon. The catechetical response, in the voice of Eric Cartman, is: “Aaaaaa, fuck you.”

    September 28, 2004
  • Re: pig fuckers

    Ah, yes. I’ll have to brush up on my South Park catechisms.

    I still like my response better, though. 🙂

    September 28, 2004
  • Re: Another Recovered Couplet from the Death Thread

    There are Unitarian-Universalists who have more in common with some Buddhist sects than they do with fundamentalist Christians.

    You betcha. I was raised a UU, in a rather more intellectual than mystical church, but I know there’s a broad gamut of UU styles out there.

    FYI, I’ve never run across a UU church that aligned itself much with Christianity at all. I’ve always considered UU’s de facto non-Christians, though a small minority, bafflingly, seem to believe in Christ. (Of course, you’ll find a small minority of UU’s who believe just about anything.)

    September 28, 2004
  • Re: Another Recovered Couplet from the Death Thread

    That’s because you’re a bad girl!

    September 29, 2004
  • Re: Another Recovered Couplet from the Death Thread

    So you’re off to Bible College! Can I have your extensive collection of bestiality porn?

    Of course you can’t. Don’t you want this person to have a social life at Bible College???

    September 29, 2004
  • Re: Another Recovered Couplet from the Death Thread

    FYI, I’ve never run across a UU church that aligned itself much with Christianity at all.

    Huh. I was raised as a Catholic—didn’t take, obviously—and in my limited experience with UU congregations, I always assumed they were part of the mainstream (if liberal) Christian herd. Thanks for the clarification.

    September 29, 2004
  • Re: Another Recovered Couplet from the Death Thread

    *laughing*

    Yeah, I can well imagine that doggie sex pictures are the unofficial currency at Jimmy Swaggart Bible College. As long as they’re heterosexual doggie sex pictures.

    September 29, 2004
  • Re: Another Recovered Couplet from the Death Thread

    The UU church has a funny history. It’s of Protestant (thus Christian, sorta) origin, but the whole “Unitarian” thing is as opposed to “Trinity,” because historically, Unitarians believed in a single God, not a trinity; they didn’t believe in the dininity of Jesus. Basically, Jesus was thought to be a great teacher, like many others in other cultures, but not any kind of Chosen One. (Or was that Buffy?)

    Universalists historically believed in universal salvation (hence the name), meaning there’s no hell because God’s just too darned nice for that. I think the Unitarian & Universalist churches merged in like the 60’s or 70’s, because their ideals were closely aligned. (There’s a saying that Universalists believed God was too good to damn people, and Unitarians believed people were too good to be damned.) Over time, the intellectual/liberal attitudes evolved to embrace all sorts of beliefs or the lack thereof.

    In the modern day, UU’s range from hardcore atheists through theists to deists and probably even some Christians — though honestly, that last baffles me. It’s really just an all-embracing religion that focuses less on religious beliefs in God or heaven/hell than on social issues and making the world we’re in now a better place. There’s been a movement in the last couple of decades to move toward more mysticism in some churches, but others remain more intellectually oriented. I took a church class as a teen called “Building Your Own Theology,” and was frustrated because all the adults refused to tell me what to believe, but insisted I find my own way. (I’m grateful now, of course, but was floundering then.)

    I still remember a sermon title from my childhood, when that famous Dustin Hoffman cross-dressing movie came out: “The Male Role, The Female Role, The Tootsie Role.”

    I like being a UU. 🙂

    September 29, 2004
  • Re: Another Recovered Couplet from the Death Thread

    Nope, never been washed in the blood of any lambs, thank you. (And can I just say, “Ick.”)

    I wrote this whole long post about the history of the Unitarian & Universalist churches, and their merger, but it’s lost now, dammit.

    It was always crystal clear to me growing up that I wasn’t Christian. Lots of UU’s are atheist or agnostic, and most churches frown on that. Not mine, though. I like being a UU. 🙂

    September 29, 2004
  • Re: Another Recovered Couplet from the Death Thread

    The “whole long post about the history of the Unitarian & Universalist churches, and their merger” is apparently not lost. I knew some of the UU history, but almost none of the particulars you posted here. Thanks.

    September 29, 2004
  • Re: Another Recovered Couplet from the Death Thread

    Yeah, I struggled with trying to delete both of my extra posts last night (managed to get one), but finally admitted defeat to Livejournal’s intractability.

    Sorry for the redundancy.

    I do wonder how many churches have a Mergers & Acquisitions Department. >g<

    September 30, 2004
  • Re: Another Recovered Couplet from the Death Thread

    Don’t worry about the redundancy: as you may know, I inadvertently posted my reply eight times because LJ was stuck in a temporal loop of some kind.

    I do wonder how many churches have a Mergers & Acquisitions Department.

    The Catholic Church has its own troops; churches may not call it “Mergers & Acquisitions,” but I bet they have “Prefects of Entrepreneurial Worship.”

    September 30, 2004
  • Re: Another Recovered Couplet from the Death Thread

    The Catholic Church has its own troops; churches may not call it “Mergers & Acquisitions,” but I bet they have “Prefects of Entrepreneurial Worship.”

    Good point. I should have said “Friendly Mergers Department.” Both sides of the UU heritage are preserved and acknowledged.

    October 01, 2004

Leave a Comment


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright © Robert J. Howe