Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Maddow: Christian Ignorance Revives Discrimination in Virginia

February 22, 2010 on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow


  1. Someone should fire straight people because they're straight. Then shit would really hit the fan.

  2. Do you know who irritates me VASTLY MORE than this anti-abortionist wacko politician? Why yes, it's Ms.Black Studies professor/theologian herself. At least the wacko anti-abortionist is providing reasons for his beliefs. Those reasons are obviously complete shit, but the bible ACTUALLY SAYS THE STUPID SHIT he's quoting. I'm not worried about that nutbag fuckwit's insane ramblings which are now thankfully on national TV, he's a worldwide laughing stock at this point.

    Ms.Professor on the other hand, of course wants to "give him a lesson" in how she interprets the bible into her own brand of vapid meaninglessness (That Maddow chimes in with a chuckle of knowing endorsement when she says this, should cause your heart to sink as much as mine did at that point. What it means, is that the mainstream liberal view on this is STILL that the professor is right in her nonsensical religious moderacy and that the only acceptable response to religious stupidity is even more religious stupidity in return with an extra coating of nicey-nicey ecumenicism on top.) And I would bet, like all liberal religious moderates, she feels no compulsion whatsoever to provide rational reasons for her numerous subjective interpretations therein.

    HE is digging his dumb religion's grave faster than a meth addicted undertaker in flu season. SHE, conversely (and PERversely) is exactly the type of person who gives implicit license to these bigots with her wooly headed defense of a watered down version of his retarded superstition. I question whether she has any ability to rationally evaluate truth claims whatsoever. After all, every cause she believes in -rights for gays, transgendered people, abortion rights etc.- while I wholeheartedly support as an atheist, are DIRECTLY in violation of the rules in the bible to which she professes belief. I would be willing to bet that the crazy politician is actually ultimately more amenable to deconversion from his dangerous beliefs than she is. At least he demonstrates a compulsion to provide reasons for his convictions. Her beliefs float uselessly, in an airy, vacuous realm of subjective postmodernism, in which ideas like logical argument have only the slightest accidental consequence.

  3. To be fair, she said she could debate him on interpretation but she'd rather not go in that direction at all.

  4. Yet again, I feel the deep need to move to another state.

  5. I thought her point was that the bible quote he used for his stupid statement is actually even worse, because, according to her, the dedication-part really means that the firstborn should be sacrificed. I didn't understand it as that she was trying to interpret the quote in a nicer way in an attempt to distance liberal Christianity from the fundamentalists... But I could have got that all wrong, and I don't know who she is, and if she has a history of doing just that, which I find as annoying as Blake does. Liberal Christians wants a pass because they are nicer, and wants to patted on the head for cherry picking all the nice stuff only out the bible, but their beliefs are ever as much total nonsense as the fundamentalist's.

  6. Listening again I can see how that might be possible, though I've looked at a few of her other video clips on various topics, and to be honest, it's hard to tell what the hell she actually thinks about anything. It's all pure identity politics and casuistic subjective opinion. Apparently she's unitarian universalist - no surprise there.

  7. Blake. You are exactly right. This is a point I have made on the video of this statement. We must not let religious apologists get away with denying their god is precisely the murdering evil sonovabitch that is portrayed in the bible and other books.

  8. You probably have a much better understanding of her, yes, since I've never seen her before.

    I've never quite got the UU-thing - it seems so... pointless!

  9. <span>
    <p><span>She represents exactly what vast majority of priests, bishops and cardinals are trying to sell.</span>
    </p><p><span>An arsenic sweetened with sugar.</span>
    </p><p><span>The results? The growing number of  mushy fundamentalists.</span>
    </p><p><span>Hey! The religion is a really sweet deal, if you only know how to interpret the killings, stoning, raping, pillaging, punishing your slaves, blood and burn sacrifices, offerings to your god, murdering your own child and selling your daughters.</span>
    </p><p><span>And that skills of the right interpretation will be given to you by attending the Universities and Colleges of theology ( not to mention of that extra bonus you get: The 'Dr' or 'Prof' in front of your name).</span>
    </p><p><span>In the middle of 1970', the years of the trembling communism - a slogan " Communism with the human face' was the most endorsing theme in every, fully controlled, political debate.</span>
    </p><p><span>Like if polishing the horns of the Mephistopheles or applying a carmine lipstick to his seductively sexy lips would change that sonofabitch into a teddy bear.</span>
    </p><p><span> </span>
    </p><p><span>Blake hit it right in the nose. Being a delusional ( read: highly educated)  apologist is even worse than being a dumb follower of the scriptures.  And, for sure much more damaging.</span>


  10. BTW: Rachel Maddow ?  Who's that incredible anchor woman in there.
    Why she's NOT a major, national TV network giants' main figure yet ??? Her voice, her strong personality, her style of conducting the interviews. She certainly doesn't sound like a pussy soft, god loving, holier than thou anchor women I know from national, american TV.
    Fuck. I think I'm in love with her.

  11. sorry bro, she's gay.