Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on God's Standards



Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck.

This is really depressing.

Posted by Tone | January 16, 2008 9:20 AM

He'll win. You'll see.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 16, 2008 9:24 AM

What a coincidence. I just built a little hut for my fiance to live in while she's having her period. Gotta avoid that ritual uncleanliness ...

Posted by tsm | January 16, 2008 9:24 AM

So there's two ways to view the Republicant nomination.

(A) As a citizen, which Republicant would be the least horrible?

(B) As a Democrat, which Republicant makes the opponent in the general election?

A month ago, one might argue Giuliani or McCain for (A). Now I think it's just McCain.

For (B), I go back and forth between Captain Special Underpants and Creation Science Fuckabee.

Should we be good citizens and hope for (A), or partisans and look for (B)?

Posted by Big Sven | January 16, 2008 9:27 AM

America deserves Mike Huckabee! Yep, we deserve him!

Hell, I think I would vote for him just to find out how he would gather all the homos and gas us out of existance.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | January 16, 2008 9:27 AM

He seems so likable on the Colbert Report. I always thought Steven Colbert (the actor, not the character) was a democrat, but I don't know how I feel about him pretending to support Huckabee without pointing out Huckabee's scary flaws.

Posted by hmm | January 16, 2008 9:29 AM

I say it's gonna be Captain Underpants. In the end, most of the Republican base bows to perceived authority, and votes for whomever the party elite prefers and puts its weight behind (this is why Bush won in 2000), and the party elite don't like either Huckabee or McCain. It's fun to see them duke it out and waste money, though.

Posted by tsm | January 16, 2008 9:32 AM

If Fuckabee wins, I am gonna sink my life savings into rocks. Let the stonings begin!

Posted by JoshWatermanMN | January 16, 2008 9:35 AM

I'm always amazed how hypocritical these idiots are. A simple reading of Leviticus gives very explicit dietary rules (no shellfish/pork, etc...), and disses the homo stuff. And establishes many other simple rules. All of which these stupid snake-handlers ignore, as they please.

So what is with "God's word"? It is whatever these idiots say it is, just like W does not care about that old worn-out piece of paper called the Constitution.

Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber | January 16, 2008 9:42 AM

The blood of Christ will only redeem homos when it has the cleansing power of nail polish remover or those strips of paper that pull out all your blackheads.

Posted by thaumaturgistguy | January 16, 2008 9:55 AM

Until Huckabee passes an entire Valley Forge winter in a tent or spends four years dodging minie balls, he'd better keep his goddamned hands off the constitution. What a fucking motherfucker.

Posted by Hallad | January 16, 2008 10:24 AM

Did you forget abortion, Dan? That's one that rarely applies to homosexuals, but would be a BIG FAT BUMMER to heterosexuals (and bisexuals, and parents of heterosexual children, and gay or queer women who get raped, and on and on and on...)

Posted by StotheL | January 16, 2008 10:30 AM
.... he'd better keep his goddamned hands off the constitution. What a fucking motherfucker.

Bush hasn't had to touch it, he just ignores the parts he doesn't like (1st amendment, 4th, 2nd (his DOJ just sided with D.C. on Heller Friday)).

Hillary will ignore it, Obama, Romney, etc.

Time to stock up on miniballs again.

Posted by LibertyPlease | January 16, 2008 10:34 AM

they talk a lot of shit, but they can't even ban abortion.

keep talking crazy, fuckabee.

Posted by max solomon | January 16, 2008 10:37 AM

Wasnt Huckabee a person of size? If so, he has commited one of the seven deadly sins.

but now that he is thin, he can go after The "rubenesque" vote which is huge in this country and Huck can shame them for the gluttony thing (Romans 12:9-13) once he gets elected.

im telling u, dan better start being nice to the community of size.

Posted by SeMe | January 16, 2008 10:41 AM


Dominionism describes, in several distinct ways, a tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action — aiming either at a nation governed by Christians or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.

Read more at:

Posted by nada | January 16, 2008 10:42 AM

@16: That's what I was going to say. I just started reading a book called Kingdom Coming, in prep for the new Christian overlords. Time to bust out the shapeless denim dresses and get rid of my dreams!

I still don't get how the fundies think that they know better than the founding fathers what the Constitution is supposed to be. I'll donate to the minie ball cause if it means that's what they have to dodge in order to get the R nomination.

Posted by Jessica | January 16, 2008 10:50 AM

Regarding the ban on eating shellfish, my mother asked my brother in law about this, since he's a bible beater of a high order. He replied that there is some other passage in the bible that has god offering someone a blanket with the offending foods saying something like nothing he's made on the blanket is to be avoided after all.

I wish I could get the actual quote, but since I'm not a reporter, I just grabbed some more deep dish pizza.

I've heard dozens of people make the same case about the shellfish to homos ratio of sin, maybe more than that. But I have never heard of the blanket argument before. Why aren't born againers making this argument more known?

Posted by sheila | January 16, 2008 11:08 AM

If so, he has commited one of the seven deadly sins.

in the bible, there are no seven deadly sins.

All of which these stupid snake-handlers ignore, as they please.

well, 90% of all christians believe in some sort of dispensational view... that the laws of the old testament no longer apply (because of what the new testament says). this is not hypocritical, though people often think it is.

modern christians did not choose which laws to obey and which to ignore. the ones they adhere to are those that are mentioned in the new testament (including one reference to homosexuality). for instance, many christians do not keep the sabbath, and will not execute their children for being disrespectful.

it is freaky to think that huckabee actually wants to change the constitution to mirror biblical laws. what is hypocritical here, is that the whole point of the new testament was to release people from the laws. christians who make people -- especially people who don't believe in jesus -- follow their laws are acting in a way that is counter to the gospel they claim to believe.

Posted by infrequent | January 16, 2008 11:11 AM

@18. in acts, some people were still following old testament laws. some church leaders were forcing new converts to follow the old laws (including getting circumcised).

NIV, Acts 10:9-16

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

Posted by infrequent | January 16, 2008 11:23 AM

I'm pretty sure that if God really gave a fuck, I'd have been turned into a pillar of salt ages ago.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 16, 2008 11:47 AM

I've heard dozens of people make the same case about the shellfish to homos ratio of sin, maybe more than that. But I have never heard of the blanket argument before. Why aren't born againers making this argument more known?

Um, because it really isn't relevant to them? It doesn't matter as long as they can cherry-pick quotes that give them permission to hate gays and women. Why would you invoke logic when you are discussing the superstitious? As if their thinking had anything to do with logic!

Posted by Tlazolteotl | January 16, 2008 12:17 PM

It's scary to here Christians talk about the Bible the way little kids interpret, on-the-fly, rules to playground games. "Nuh ah, I'm not dead, the white lines are hot lava proof!"

Posted by Dougsf | January 16, 2008 12:18 PM
When I brought up the fact that fundamentalists ignore plenty of stuff in the bible that applies to them—like a ban on eating lobster—he assured me that Jesus’ blood on the cross he redeemed even lobster. “But not me?” I asked. “No, not homosexuals.”

At this point, the only response should be, "Show me where it says that in the Bible."

I've had many a bible thumper use this "Christ dies for our sins, so Leviticus doesn't count" crap many times when it deals with their lives; yet nowhere that I know of does it lay that out explicitly. It stands to reason that since the only mention of homosexuality was presented DURING Christ's life, that rule would also be nullified... but in the end it's all just rationalizing a storybook.

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | January 16, 2008 12:21 PM

dude -- who doesn't know that white lines are lava proof?

Posted by infrequent | January 16, 2008 12:22 PM


1 Cor 6:9-11

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Posted by infrequent | January 16, 2008 12:27 PM

Well, that doesn't say anything about devourers of shellfish....

Looks like teh gheys pass, and people who mix fabric, eat shellfish, trim the corners of their beards, etc. are still damned for all eternity.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 16, 2008 12:33 PM


I thought that sounded a little anachronistic. I looked up several on-line editions of the King James Bible and that verse says nothing about homosexuals. It says:

(I Cor 6:9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

So as long as you're butch, you're alright by god!

Posted by Al | January 16, 2008 12:58 PM

ha! then i'm really in trouble if huckabee gets his hands on the constitution!

Posted by infrequent | January 16, 2008 1:27 PM

@20 and all the other references to Acts chapter 10 here should also include
)28) And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

seems to me the gays are uncommonly clean now.

Posted by NOS | January 16, 2008 1:31 PM

i guess my point was/is that you cannot argue doctrine with the likes of huckabee. it is not productive.

instead, just stick with, religious laws should not be imposed on a secular population. clear and simple.

when you start to say that biblical laws contradict themselves, or telling believers how to interpret their bible, you will not gain any traction with them.

Posted by infrequent | January 16, 2008 1:32 PM

(where's my copy of THE HANDMAIDS TALE? i know it's here somewhere...)

Huckabee and Multiple-Choice Mitt would be a dream candidacy for the Dems. They should be easier to beat than Dole was.

And if Muddle America swallows their Xtian Taliban nonsense... well, we're lost...

Posted by andy niable | January 16, 2008 2:59 PM

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Or not. I look forward to seeing you all at "Mr Poe's Back Alley Abortionz Clinic/Speakeasy" sometime in 2009.

@ 23 and 25: Yellow lines are also lava proof, you despicable racists.

Posted by Looptid | January 16, 2008 3:26 PM

Dude, if you've gotten to the point of arguing specific bible verses with these people, they're already won.

Repeat to self: Why should anyone (other than a devout Christian) care about interpreting the bible? We shouldn't!

Posted by Cate | January 16, 2008 3:38 PM

I agree with #34. As a Christian of the non-crazy persuasion, I can tell you that the only proper response to Mike Huckabee and his ilk is, "Fuck you and your Bible. First amendment, bitch."

Posted by Greg | January 16, 2008 4:42 PM

I agree. The bible says all kinds of crazy crap, but if we accept the pretext that these issues should be argued within the framework of the bible, then we've already admitted defeat to the bible thumpers.

the bible is a collection of fairy tales adapted from earlier polytheistic religions. who gives a flying crap what it says?

Posted by sepiolida | January 16, 2008 5:07 PM

this is not about politics, but art. the art section's not the right one.

i showed a piece at ouch my eye gallery. and here's the breakdown
show - 9.11.06
asking for artwork back - 8.7.07
shit. almost a year. stopping by didn't help get it back either.

then i was sent a nice email with a nice video and some nice words.

then i went to the space and mailed again on 12.17.07

see what i'm getting at.
i am leaving town. To Day. hoooray. south and sun

i asked again for my work or for the check for its purchase.

i know some peoples in the gallery world. maybe this happens all the time...? doubt it. although i did hear that a funny as hell piece about the oval office was stolen from a gallery in town a couple of years back.

anyway, getting back on track here.
name of the show was 'cui bono' or 'who benefits'
ironisch huh?

just a heads up

Posted by cowgirlnamedearl | January 21, 2008 2:35 PM

and yeah....i know letting go is the best thing.

you have everything you need.


Posted by cowgirlnamedearl | January 21, 2008 2:45 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).