Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Vandalism for Jesus.

It’s like burning a cross — in a bad way.
I need to start reading this Popehat guy; the snark is strong in this one.

And that chick at WorldNetDaily? I want to make fun of her. I want to mock her turgid phrases that proudly display the kind of reasoning ability you don't often encounter outside the bins in the produce section at your local grocery store. But the truth is, she scares me a little. Behind that dull, bovine gaze beats the heart of a fanatic. If she can pretzel her way around to cheering an anonymous vandal for his courageous heroism, there's no telling just what she could rationalize. People like her are part of the reason I own guns, because she's got "Ready-Made, Pre-Fit, Lynch Mob Component #10014317" practically tatooed across her forehead.

52 comments:

Ed Foster said...

Bravo! A touch less intimidating than the typical Moslem bomb tosser, but from the same camp.

Differing in degree, not in kind, loonies like this do nothing but engender repressive thugs on the other end of the spectrum (see Officer Murphy, above).

Ain't it a bitch, finding out after all these years that you're a moderate, stuck somewhere in the middle between two whack extremes?

Robert said...

People like her are part of the reason I own guns, because she's got "Ready-Made, Pre-Fit, Lynch Mob Component #10014317" practically tatooed across her forehead.

Yup. People like her aren't the reason I own guns (I'd probably own them anyway, since I got into guns via hunting). People like her are the reason I own guns that accept 30 round mags and can fire as fast as I pull the trigger.

WV: pentab. Intel's new soft drink.

Ken said...

Actually, as a member of the secesh, I find the term "Indivisible" offensive. I'm-a go tag it so it reads, "One Nation/Divisible/Try it, you'll like it!" ;-)

Robert said...

She'd provbably be all for bring back the inquisition.

Matt G said...

Would she be the one who managed to rip the actual smile from the canvas?

Michael said...

Every once in a while it takes a post like this to remind me that we're not necessarily the allies that I would like to think.

Inquisition? Same camp as a moslem bombers? Really?

Really?

Sometimes your outright contempt for Christians is just a little much.

Have you read her other articles? You're ready thank "Vishnu" or whatever the hell for having guns to defend yourselves against this dangerous woman because she had the nerve to applaud defacing a sign? Come on.

A while back there was an art student at a local (to me) university whose work consisted of the virgin Mary dressed like a hooker with a dollar stuck out of something or other on display at another university. The artwork was stolen, ostensibly by someone offended by it. It was never recovered. Whoever stole it was my hero at least for a day or two.

I don't see anything about Satterfield that makes her such a scary threat. You know, we could be on the same team. We are powerful allies. We would also be powerful enemies.

Anonymous said...

"Behind that dull, bovine gaze beats the heart of a fanatic"

Yup. A face like that makes me want to plant a kiss right on her fetching mouth.

Alas, my well-armed wife may misconstrue the Platonic nature of my gesture.

MALTHUS

Tam said...

Michael,

"Inquisition? Same camp as a moslem bombers? Really?

Really?

Sometimes your outright contempt for Christians is just a little much.
"

I said nothing about inquisitions or bombers.

Nor do I have "contempt" for Christians.

I do however have intense contempt for thieves and vandals, no matter what cloak of offended self-righteous respectability they choose to wrap their crimes in.

If it's okay for you to vandalize billboards that offend you, then is it okay for me to vandalize billboards that offend me?

Why do you have such contempt for good manners and the rule of law?

Michael said...

I said nothing about inquisitions or bombers.

Your commenters did. "You" in my previously quoted sentence was the plural form.

However, you (singular) did use the term "dull, bovine gaze". I looked at that photo for some time and, you know, I just don't see it.

I see lots of billboards I don't particularly care for. Lots of bumper stickers. Lots of "art". Never really gave much thought to vandalism or any other form of "retribution". I wouldn't have the nerve to, for one. The risk/satisfaction ratio isn't there for me to even consider trying it. But, yeah, in this case I find it hard to get very upset over either the vandalism itself or the fact that the WND columnist approved. Probably doesn't mean she's going to be blowing up any abortion clinics anytime soon. I may be wrong but I doubt she'd be cheerleading the action either. If she does that, then I might understand all this alarm. Might.

Michael said...

If I might add, I'm curious. Tam, what kind of a billboard might offend you, anyway?

Would it be an ad for a church service? Christian, of course.

Or maybe a pro-life ad?

Can't say that I've seen too many Westboro Baptist style billboards around here. For the record, I'd be offended by one of those, too, and would probably help you paint over that one... heh.

DaveFla said...

I know my Redeemer liveth, Michael. But I don't recall him teaching that it was neighborly to evangelize by disrespecting the property of others.

wv: foyessin. What's Foye been up to *now*?

Michael said...

Dave, in all four of the Gospel narratives you'll find Our Redeemer getting quite disrespectful toward the property of the money-changers in the temple.

Ken said...

@Michael: Indubitably, but the fact that it was the Temple -- His Father's house -- might've had something to do with that. His followers weren't going all Black Bloc at every opportunity otherwise (that was more or less the Zealots' game, apparently).

Keith said...

"Dave, in all four of the Gospel narratives you'll find Our Redeemer getting quite disrespectful toward the property of the money-changers in the temple."

So vandalism is ok because Jesus did it?

SpeakerTweaker said...

Thanks for the link, Tam. That was a great read.

Michael? Read Tam's post again. I think you missed something. Or maybe it's me. I read that Tam says that, if this lady would applaud one crime, who's to say she wouldn't applaud something else? Add into that the mob mentality, and you have the potential for anything.

I won't speak for Tam, but I know that I carry a gun for the potential of Very Bad Things. I don't give a rat's arse if it's a mob of angry Bible-thumpers, a bona-fide OMGTEHMUZLIM terrorists, or Sumdood wanting my wallet/wife/vital organs.



tweaker

Rob K said...

Compare and contrast her lauding of anti-atheist vandalism with her pro-drug-war rant here:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=167041 (really ironic is that there's a link to buy the book "Bad Trip: How the War Against Drugs is Destroying America" from the WND store right in the middle of the column).

I think Tam's right about her being a potential lynch mobber, and I say this as a very conservative Christian. This woman seems to have no critical thinking skills. She's a useful idiot for 'right-wing' statists.

And if one is offended by a billboard, the proper response is not to deface it, but to purchase billboard space of one's own in rebuttal.

Tennessee Budd said...

I may agree with the sentiment, but I can't go along with defacing others' property.
A nation of laws (and the fewer, the better), not of men.

alath said...

Michael is displaying a pattern that I am very concerned to see growing and spreading in our culture. We're so wrapped up in our various Team Identities (Democrat, Christian, Vol Fan) that we will condone any behavior if someone on our team does it, and condemn any behavior if someone on the other team does it.

This is how we get supposed fiscal discipline Republicans supporting Bush's Medicare Part D, Gay liberals supporting Obama despite being thrown under the bus, pacifists supporting Obama's Afghanistan war plans, and now "principled" Christians supporting vandalism, so long as it's pro-Jesus vandalism.

Being principled means we call the same strike zone no matter which team is batting. Unfortunately, it's a

Tam said...

"Being principled means we call the same strike zone...

This is full of so much win.

mc said...

I loath thieves and vandals. I have had more than a couple of bicycles stolen, and once it involved several savages removing me from the device first.

Still I can't seem to get all worked up over this silly girl. I thought I might make an inane kissing joke, but Anonyous beat me to that, and reading it I am glad to avoid the crass digression.

Perhaps this girl will have a sense of fairness ground into her eventually, like the wrinkles of cynicism furrow their way into former cheerleaders.

Or not.

JohnOC said...

As a practicing Catholic, and thereby tarred as a member of team God-is-great-burn-the-sinners-no-sex-ever-stupid-holy-roller I'd very much like that lady to get off my side. I really don't appreciate being expected to defend overblown caricatures of positions I don't hold.

Anonymous said...

Mother Mary!

When the jahanam did we trade our Wookie suits for brand spanking new wussy suits? So what if the whelp praised spraypaint.

With the 24/7 barrage of god hatred and social vandalism being launched into the proverbial fan - this woman is scary? Here we are soiling ourselves silly over a few [qualified] paragraphs penned by a God-fearing (the good kind) waif named Chrissy...Chrissy! As if she's the queen in command of God's earthly army. Oh the Horror! She's just like rev Wright and Jim Jones but more powerfuller doncha know! It has been written that her foul brand of god speech leads directly from the local koolaid stand to the national inquisition...Burn the witch!

Any one of the Founders who shared in delineating the earthly boundaries of state power and in codifying our God-given rights as individuals would likely cause heads to implode if they were alive today to piss their rhetorical wrath upon this underoofest of a polity. A people which reflexively slips into gang-bang mode at the mere word of a christian girl who doesn't run screaming into the middle distance upon contemplating citizens who will not consent to take "abuse forever". Shut up and eat the gruel you've been given Jesus freak...It will plump you up for the lions.

Kudos to whomever it was who had -once upon a forgotten time- observed that we the people get exactly the .gov we deserve. So too do we earn the society we deserve.

LabRat said...

Tam is a predominantly right-wing commentator, which means her commenters tend to be even more majority Christian than they are elsewhere in a 76% majority Christian nation. I actually have no idea what she actually believes, but I know my commenters are majority Christian as well, and I'm a rather outspoken atheist.

So how someone can look at this post and the comments and conclude that the motivation for condemning this woman is a knee-jerk hatred of Christianity rather than a knee-jerk hatred of justifying crime and praise of attempts to intimidate opposing voices is baffling to me.

And yes, cheering on defacing opposing points of view, especially if they happen to be opposing points of view actually held by an "ally", DOES rather rule out "alliances".

LabRat said...

Any one of the Founders who shared in delineating the earthly boundaries of state power and in codifying our God-given rights as individuals would likely cause heads to implode if they were alive today to piss their rhetorical wrath upon this underoofest of a polity.

You are aware, yes, that the "offensive and god-hating content" of the signs that were defaced was excerpts of the Pledge of Allegiance that did not include the phrase "under god"? And that their version is in fact the original language of the Pledge prior to 1954?

I think this is one of those days where I prefer to believe this is deliberate parody by an anonytroll and not unconscious self-parody.

Anonymous said...

LabRat,

"I'm a rather outspoken atheist."

Do you run around and tell folks they are wrong to believe in a god/GOD?

Do you tell children there is no Easter bunny, Santa and tooth fairy?

Do you think most folks find your insight helpful?

Vandalism is wrong but the jump to lynch mob was way too much of a streach for this agnostic.

Gerry

LabRat said...

Do you run around and tell folks they are wrong to believe in a god/GOD?

Do you tell children there is no Easter bunny, Santa and tooth fairy?

Do you think most folks find your insight helpful?


Do you think asking condescending questions based on insulting assumptions, particularly in a public medium in which all record of opinion is likewise public and easily discovered, is productive?

What she is cheering on is defacing an expression of opinion that can only be construed as offensive to her side if you define "offensive" as "not acknowledging as the one way to view the world", because the people doing the defacing are nominally on her team. The point is not that she is clearly about to charge out and start a second Inquisition and this is terrifying, it's that she's clearly eager to rationalize anything done by "her team" as a good thing, and this mindset is in itself disturbing- as its fullest extent is the lynch mob.

Joe in PNG said...

Doing a Bad Thing for a Good Cause is evil. Full stop.

The whole "well they did it first!" argument is childish and un-Christian.

wolfwalker said...

Tam,

I want to mock her turgid phrases that proudly display the kind of reasoning ability you don't often encounter outside the bins in the produce section at your local grocery store. But the truth is, she scares me a little.

There's a reason that publication is known in some circles as "the Worldnutdaily."

Anonymous said...

Labrat,

I would never defend vandalism or the destruction of private property. I can not see how she can based on her stated Christian beliefs. What I find a "leap of faith" is that leads to mob mentality.

The fact is that in 1954, one major difference was that freedom of religion or from religion in the US versus the state is god in the fascist and communist governments. Under God reinforced that. It was one of the founding tenets of the US if poorly protected from time to time. You are free to partake of or not as you wish. The Supreme Court has defined the limits well enough over time.

I'm not interested in people telling me there is no God or there is and he's pissed you ate that hamburger on Good Friday. There is no logic in faith or love so arguing about who is right is mute. We agree to disagree and we will all find out in the answer to the Big question in the end.

If my snarky reply offended you I do apologize.

Gerry

staghounds said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tam said...

Gerry,

"Vandalism is wrong"

Period-motherfucking-full-stop.

Anybody too dumb to grasp this simple fact is welcome to not read my ignernt maunderings.

staghounds said...

Wrong, maybe.

Being a felony vandal
myself, I can't say it's NEVER justified or ALWAYS unreasonable.

(But I did turn myself in.)

I fail to understand what part of "One nation, indivisible" is contrary to, or insulting to, the Christian faith or its believers.

Is divisibility of government in the Gospels?

LabRat said...

I perhaps put a little bit more pepper on the reply than I would have having had a less stressful week, but when I say "outspoken", I mean I try to be thoughtful and discuss such issues frequently rather than leaving the question of belief politely unmolested. You can probably see how those questions might have read as "First off, are you an asshole? Have you ever considered not being an asshole?"

The fact is that in 1954, one major difference was that freedom of religion or from religion in the US versus the state is god in the fascist and communist governments. Under God reinforced that. It was one of the founding tenets of the US if poorly protected from time to time. You are free to partake of or not as you wish. The Supreme Court has defined the limits well enough over time.

So you say. I see it as highlighting the contrast between officially atheist totalitarian regimes and the God-fearing USA. Regardless rather than highlighting religious freedom, it made a statement of patriotic faith less inclusive when it had been more before the edit. I am not very interested in fighting the battle because I regard it as a trivial one- I have no particular right not to feel like a minority when I am one, nor is the majority obligated not to act like the majority- but I see the point of the sign and think it a valid one. And it's still ludicrous to look at a battle over a sign that reverts to the original text and say our forefathers would be ashamed of the change.

Regardless, the subject at hand regarding the low opinion we have of this writer specifically hinges on her being willing to put aside her normal principles and see through the lens of "us and them" instead. I'm sure she would have regarded it a great outrage had an atheist group defaced a church sign, yet it would have been exactly the same behavior. This willingness to set aside right and wrong, or to hitch it to group identity, is what is being criticized.

Why the comparison to the actual necktie partiers? Because they felt themselves to be acting as righteous Christians for the same reasons, just writ much deadlier.

Data Viking said...

FYI: "this Popehat guy" is actually a collective; I've been reading them for around three years after being pointed there by OverLawyered.com which I've been reading even longer.

kishnevi said...

The WND gal represents 1) the reason I thank God every day for living in a country that has the First Amendment and 2)have never ever been tempted to vote for a Republican candidate.

She after all does have a good deal in common with the folks who run JewsKilledJesus dot com. Don't want to toxify the thread with an actual link to that place, but if you go there, you will find the folks behind look rather familiar. In fact, they've already been mentioned upthread.

Sarah said...

My faith isn't a justification for dumping on other people, including destroying their property. The last time I checked, Jesus was a big fan of that Golden Rule thing. It must be important if it's in red letters, right? :)

Jayson said...

kishnevi, jewish people like yourself are a problem if you're voting for Dems. Hell, the Dems have thrown the Jews and Israel under the bus multiple times. It's like you have Battered Jew Syndrome.

Robert said...

"We are powerful allies. We would also be powerful enemies."

OK. Count me on the enemy side then.

kishnevi said...

Hell, the Dems have thrown the Jews and Israel under the bus multiple times

Not particularly. Carter tried to, and probably lost the Jewish vote as his reward. On the other side of the aisle Bush, Sr. tried strongarming Israel after the First Gulf War, and it certainly didn't help his re-election chances. Obama either doesn't care or didn't notice those two instances. It might be pertinent that one of the largest reservoirs of anti-Semitism in the contemporary USA is the black community. They'll say something offensive, often not realizing there is a Jew present, and then get offended with the Jew because the Jew gets offended. Whites, by contrast, who come out with a insulting remark will usually grovel and apologize.

But any hesitations over the treatment of Israel by the Democrats are usually overcome by the importance of the Religious Right in the GOP. No, Mr. Protestant evangelist on TV urging me to vote, I don't want a theocracy, especially if Christians are running it. Christian theocracies have a way of eventually running their Jews out of town, if they don't kill them first.

The only Jews who reliably vote for the GOP nowadays are the Orthodox and ultraOrthodox; but of course they want a theocracy themselves. They just want a different set of clergy to be in charge and only care about it if it's located in Israel.

Matt G said...

In 1994, I tore down a flag that wasn't mine. It was a United States flag that had been flown until it was tattered and had holes in it. It was dripping its hem, and the leeward end was missing the last 3 inches, give or take, of fabric. It was, in my opinion, a disgrace. I took it down, and disposed of it properly. It was not mine to do, and I'm a little ashamed of this, especially because I had to bend the flagpole that wasn't mine to get it down.

I felt, at the time, that the flag itself represented a vandalism of what it was supposed to represent. There was no dignity in flying that flag in that manner.

But I was wrong, and I admit it.

Roberta X said...

Micheal writes, "You know, we could be on the same team. We are powerful allies. We would also be powerful enemies."

Yup, such a team! I'll write the books and you can burn 'em.

No thanks.

Roberta X said...

...As for the Pledge itself, no matter what words have been added, it came along roughly a hundred years after the Revolution and was written by an avowed socialist with the intent of increasing nationalist sentiment. I suspect "our forefathers" would have had very mixed views of such a periodically-recited loyalty oath.

Anonymous said...

People, please. Jesus taught that many will come in his name, but he does not know them, and they are NOT on his side, to paraphrase. I see the story of the responses of the "two thieves on the cross" who were crucified with Jesus as the most graphic parable in the New Testament. All of mankind has to chose what they will do with this Jesus. One ridiculed him and the other had faith in him. Those are the only two choices we have. Remember there are many who will declare they come in His name, but He does not know all of them. If you recall, the "BTK" serial killer was president of his local congregation for a number of years while he was commiting his heinous crimes. If you wish to ridicule Christendom based on that man's example then you are simply displaying how gullible and biased you are. Kentucky Jones

Leatherwing said...

Roberta X,
Well said, re the provenance of the pledge.

Geodkyt said...

Another point about the Pledge that is generally overlooked.

Adding "Under God" was spearheaded by a variety of religious groups -- most notably the Knights of Columbus (sort of like Masons for Roman Catholics).

As Eisenhower said when he signed the change into law, the purpose was to FORCE children to make a formal acknowledgement of God every day in school.

And some people don't understand why strict Constitutionalists might have a problem with that, even if they ARE devout believers in one or more gods. . .

Yes, there are Contitutionalist conservatives of various pagan stripes, including Hindus. And even a bunch of us Christans want our Constitution WITHOUT a side order of Jesus thrown in every bag. If you can PROMOTE a particular religion, you can OPPOSE a particular religion -- I prefer the "Keep your friggin' hands off my church!" approach across the board, because I don't TRUST Mob Rule to protect religions that become unfashionable, and I'm not willing to risk that MY religion may not become unfashionable.

Anonymous said...

"Tam is a predominantly right-wing commentator, which means her commenters tend to be even more majority Christian than they are elsewhere in a 76% majority Christian nation. I actually have no idea what she actually believes, but I know my commenters are majority Christian as well, and I'm a rather outspoken atheist."

Ignoring for now that I think Tam is actually as close to a "wingless" commentator as you'll find, fairly closely aligned with libertarianism, which is to say, unaligned except as pertains to infringement on personal rights and freedoms:

Wow, LabRat. Don't know what the methodology there is, but I'm doubtin' the conclusions. 76% may well self-identify as Christian (to differentiate from say, Moslems or beelzebub admirers), but the percentage that would consider themselves ardent Christian let alone that might debate supernatural origin in print, would have to be much lower. And at least as to the more frequent commenters here at VFTP (also a decidedly unscientific anecdotal sampling, not representative of either the lurkers here or the populace in general), my guess is that those percentages could be safely reversed (24% Christian, 76% other religions including -and especially- atheism and agnosticism.

As to the original post, I'm way late to the comment party, but there is simply no way to justify destroying the property of others except in self-defense (and no, an attack on your sensibility doesn't qualify for that; it's okay to want to kill the guy who blasphems your God or pisses on your flag so long as you don't act on the impulse). So the easy answer is that the lady is not only wrong, but as Tam alluded, potentially dangerous; if she has no problem stepping over the private property line she may be equally unable to distinguish where her rights end and mine or others' begin when there is a more direct and physical threat at hand. People do illogical things under the guise of divine providence all. the. time. Crazy dangerous is crazy dangerous no matter what the claimed justification; gotta be ready to kill the threat before it kills you.

OTOH, if this argument were purely about vandalism and third-party support of it and the parties to it had motives other than religious or anti-religious zealotry, it is unlikely to have been the subject of a post at VFTP at all, let alone generate the comment torrent that this, and most, religiously-oriented posts do. That has more than a little to do with that "outspoken atheism" 'Rat spoke of, I think. And it's good to see articulate counter comments to that influence like Michael's to keep the discussion more honest and interesting.

AT

Tam said...

"it is unlikely to have been the subject of a post at VFTP at all..."

Sure, if you ignore all my smack-talking about G20 rioters and enviroterrorists and...

LabRat said...

The figure is based on self-identification, which includes self-identification as part of a group on whatever grounds, which include but are not limited to wanting to have a protracted argument with me or Tam about it.

My actual POINT was neither of us are specifically hostile to Christianity to the point that commenters who identify as such perceive the environment as hostile- they know what my opinions are, but evidently those opinions alone are not sufficient to make them feel unwelcome or specifically persecuted.

As to where I judge the wingness of Tam's audience (and the percentage faithful), it's mostly from the kinds of threads that garner universal agreement versus commentocausts. I wouldn't call myself right-wing either, but generally I can bash liberals all day and only a few people I can name will speak up, but skewer a conservative cow and there will be Discussion.

Fiftycal said...

ALLAH AKBAR! Oh, wait. Hail budda. er, no. My lord and saviour is jesus. Wait, isn't that a hispanic name? Well, if GAWD is talking to you, see a physician. The only "true" meaning is that we are all going to die. THEN we find out what is on the other side. People have been finding out for thousands of years. So pick your favorite superstition and give them your money.

Anonymous said...

"...if you ignore all my smack-talking about G20 rioters and enviroterrorists and..."

No, no...I mentioned religious and anti-religious zealotry.

AT

Tam said...

AT,

Had I noticed a news story about somebody vandalizing one of the innumerable "When You Die, You Will Face God" billboards around here, I probably would have commented on it.

Anonymous said...

"...skewer a conservative cow and there will be Discussion."

aka: "...the kinds of threads that garner...commentocausts."

aka: "protracted argument".

Kinda the point of a good blog. I for one wouldn't be here if this was some cozy little knitting circle. Well-stated disagreement is the raw material of logic, reason, and knowledge.

"...my opinions alone are not sufficient to make (my commenters) feel unwelcome or specifically persecuted."

Of course not. Challenged and invigorated, rather.

AT