Obama = Kara Thrace

Harbinger of the Apocalypse and all that good stuff.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

As is usual when Tim LaHaye and the monstrous work of bad writing and worse theology known as Left Behind is brought up, the Metra is left to say: What, what now? Of course, Rachel Maddow said: What, what now? with far more style than I can muster.

Question, if the Anti-Christ will be a commie socialist, why was the early Christian community described in Acts functioning as a commune?

Good to know...

Mike Huckabee is not pro-sodomy. Just in case you were wondering.



File under, the hell?

h/t Box Turtle Bulletin

One of these days...

I will get back to rambling here...but until then...

Congrats to Barack Obama!

And shame upon a bit over half of California, Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas. Shame.

More on the Knoxville shooting

Two pieces of analysis from the writers at Alas, A Blog.

The Dangers of Demagoguery

My additional comment here is that Tennesseans have experienced not one, but two major incidents of demagoguery put into action this year. The first was the burning of the Islamic Center in Columbia, TN. And now this. Maybe Tennessee will manage to wake up at some point and recognize their political grandstanding does actually hurt people.

Also from Alas: Guns, Killing, and People

Knoxville Church Shooting

A gunman walked into a Knoxville area Unitarian-Universalist church yesterday and opened fire, killing two members and injuring others. His actions probably were influenced by the church putting up a sign declaring support for GLBT persons. The Knoxville police report that in a letter he wrote he claimed to target the church because of it's "liberal stance on things."

There's a number of blogposts following this with more info:
Box Turtle Bulletin: here, here, and here
Pam's House Blend
and
The Wild Hunt

Eye rolls of the Day

First and foremost -- Christians feel "offended" by English translations of the Koran being left on their doors. Read more at Barthlomew's Notes on Religion. (Via. The Wild Hunt and The Jaded Hippy.)

Now how many Gideon Bibles and Chick tracts have I scored lately? Hmm...

Second, via Ramblings a gay man is suing Zondervan and Thomas Nelson claiming that the references to homosexuality in the KJV and NKJV and probably NIV have violated his constitutional rights by causing him emotional suffering.

The intent of the publisher was to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder," Fowler wrote.

You know, I'm sure that the translations in question have caused him pain and contribute to the anti-gay bigotry of evangelical Christian culture. I'm inclined to think that the verses implied are, in fact, mistranslated. (Of course, I also think that to a great extent they are untranslatable.) And as for Zondervan's study materials, I don't think too highly of them. But, seriously, is this the best way to go about educating people as to the problems with those translations and study materials? And to paraphrase answers to one family of anti-porn arguments, the Bible doesn't kill people, violent bigots kill people.

In defense of the rest of us on the super-progressive side of world, this is not how we generally operate. I shall now return to reading subversively. ;)

And all the Whos of Whoville

Go read this article: "Horton Hears a Religious Left."

And I agree, what's up with this misinformation that the Founding Fathers were all about the "sanctity of life" and "preserving marriage?" I can buy the interested in religious freedom bit -- but for some reason, I suspect that the FFs had a somewhat different conception -- if indeed, we can even treat the FFs as a monolith who all agreed with each other. (p.3)

Theologizing in Exile

Deryn Guest discusses the concept of being in exile from one's spiritual home in When Deborah Met Jael. It's a good concept, and one that I think fits my experience with Christianity better than some of the metaphors I've thrown around.

I'm an exile from CofCdom. I could not remain a part of the CofC out of fear for my soul, yet I find if difficult act like the rest of America and ignore the CofC's existence, find some other spiritual home, and get on with life.

I feel pressured at times to simply be silent about the degree of hurt I feel from the CofC. I feel as though I am supposed to just get out and stay out, and never speak to the damage done by their exclusionary practices -- of being shown each Sunday that I was unworthy of distributing the Eucharist (okay, they didn't use the word Eucharist), unworthy of speaking to God publicly, unworthy of sharing my thoughts with the congregation. I have been sexualized in unwelcome ways by being told that if, as a girl, I was allowed to formally debate the boys, then I "might dress provocatively in order to distract them." (Ha!) My right to existence has been constructed as entirely contingent on entering into a patriarchal marriage, and my sanity and the existence of a heart have been questioned because I had no interest in doing so. I have mocked by peers and teachers for being nothing more than young, immature, and anger -- all of which might be true, but none of which should result in open disregard and mockery. CofCdom -- at least, the Tennessee version -- is hostile to my sense of myself and not above using spiritual violence to try to break down and reform my sense of self. I have felt abandoned by God, created only to be an anathema and scapegoat. And yet, I'm supposed to not take it personally, get over it, and move on. Forget, forget, forget -- and definitely don't talk about.

I do not mean to suggest that my injuries are cases of extreme spiritual violence. They is far worse done on a daily basis. I acknowledge that the majority of the people who have hurt me and attacked my person never intended to do so, and yet, this doesn't change the fact that violence was done. Violence of a more systematic than individual nature, but violence did happen. If I repress that, how am I supposed to move past it in any real way? And if I remain silent, how many more of my siblings will be injured by the unjust structures that govern CofCdom?

Despite all this, I have a sense of loyalty to CofCdom. I have been shaped by indelible ways by Restoration Movement thought. I'm an exile, an expat. I left my home behind, and I despair of ever being able to return, but still something in me continues to hope. To hope that the regimes and structures of CofCdom will change, and it will be a space that doesn't do violence to my person.

Are You Going to be a Missionary?

I was just chatting last night about how a lot of people from the church I was raised in assumed that since I'm (was? -- oh god, just finished the last undergrad class!) double majoring in Russian Studies and Religious Studies that I'm going to go out and convert the heathen masses of Russia.

Yeah, I don't want to make Putin that mad. (And there's that whole opinion I have that Orthodoxy, while not perfect, is far superior to the Evangelical groups who tend to be running missions in Russia.)

There are huge problems with the way that the Orthodox Church in Russia has been caught up in a nationalist movement. There are issues of freedom of religion. (However, we Americans should be careful to not read our experiences with certain religion dominating government policy into the situation with Russia.) Obviously, Orthodox bishops dubbing Protestants "Christ-killers" is a problem. But the article would have you believe that the Russian Orthodox are all hateful barbarians and that the Protestants are squeaky-clean.

I really feel like this article didn't do justice to the colonizing element of Protestant missions in Russia. Many people involved with these missions seem to not even recognize Orthodoxy as Christianity. I have heard comments that dehumanize and defame Russians. (Most famously: "They just don't know how to love each other.") It's difficult to sort these colonial attitudes out from some genuinely good impulses that are also present in mission work, but the colonial attitude can't be ignored. That is -- the poor, persecuted Protestants aren't necessarily as innocent as this article would have you believe.

Du-buh?

Questions that have run through my mind recently:

Just what is Bill O'Reilly referring to when the words "the far left" leave his mouth? Does he realize that the "far" left actually isn't that excited about Barack Obama? I suspect the far left is too terrifying for the BOR to even imagine.

Disregarding other things Rev. Wright may have said (my gut feeling is that, for the most part, he's being unfairly taken out of context), how on earth is the statement, "America is run by rich, white people," incendiary? It just seems to be factual. Angry, yes. Offensive, no.

Why is this book in existence? Seriously, I kinda want to get my hands on it for laughs. I love the scrambling to shore up the hegemony of representation. And my two cents on the matter: Eastern Orthodoxy is very much Christian.

Why does much of Christianity purport to conform to Chalcedon and yet completely ignore the FULL HUMANITY of Jesus Christ?

How did I manage to miss the word theosis until today? How sad for me. Much easier to say than bogochelovechstvo.

How can it be so difficult to find a picture of two broken pots on the interwebs?

Now leaving my brainspace...

On another note -- to anyone and everyone celebrating the Resurrection today -- Happy Easter!

Do Conservatives Need Safe Spaces?

Yes, it's a joke. (Has momentary daydream of a guerrilla movement, then simultaneously reminds herself that she's ideologically a pacifist and looks forward to the arrival of Les Guerilleres.)

Angry id -- back in the closet! Angry not-id -- front and center!

Wait! What? Would someone please tell me when the last time a conservative was assaulted or murdered for being a conservative? When was the last time someone was harassed to the point of committing suicide because he was a conservative?

However, the anti V-day campaign doesn't seem to be a joke. I'm not the biggest proponent of the Vagina Monologues that you'll ever meet. I'm too inclined to wanting to completely dissolve the coherence of the categories of man and woman. There are several monologues in the play that I don't personally identify with, and at least one that actually makes me feel queasy. If someone asked me what my vagina would wear, I would likely look at them askance, explain the difficulties of designing clothing for vaginas, and finish up with murmuring something about how weirded out I am by female condoms (note: I'm no more opposed to female condoms than I am to tampons, but both weird me out for reasons unknown to my conscious mind). And I'm not head over heels in love with the treatment of gender in the play. I'm extremely sad that this year's performance at Rhodes was not inclusive of transwomen (it has been at least once in the past.)

However, I heartily support the main idea -- THERE IS NOTHING SHAMEFUL ABOUT BEING EMBODIED WITH A VAGINA. Oh, and you get to decide upon the meaning and value of that vagina and the rest of your body for yourself.

Madness, ain't it? It could even be hysterical! But least I be told that I am missing something -- here's a closer analysis of the brochure, The Vagina Monologues: Exposed!

Violence against Cupid?

In their effort to redefine a day meant to celebrate love and romance, Ensler and her “Vagina Warriors” proclaimed Valentine’s Day as “V-Day” until the violence against women stops, and then it will become “Victory Day” (Ensler 173). So long, Cupid. (page 13)

OMG! They killed Cupid! Because it's so terribly empowering to have bad chocolates (or maybe good chocolates) showered upon one. Terribly empowering to have a day dedicated to social pressure to mate and then reproduce. Actually, I'm detecting a capitalist/consumerist concern here. We have to have this excuse to consume, consume, consume -- and yes, it's just a subtext but I do believe that it's here.

Do the Vagina Monologues Objectify Women?

It perpetuates the very attitude that often leads to sexual violence: treating women as objects. (page 24)

Dear person writing this brochure -- are you familiar with the use of subject and object? Defining myself, defining the meaning of my own body rather than letting society dictate that meaning to me is being a subject. Do the Monologues threaten at times to create a new hegemonic "we" of women's experience? In some ways -- yes -- but the format of the play -- a diverse collection of voices, offering a multiplicity of ways of relating to vaginas -- is itself in tension with that possibility. The Vagina Monologues are about allowing women to be the subjects of their own sexuality. It's when the meaning of vagina possession is imposed from without that we have objectification.

But in reality, that's the problem that this organization has with the Monologues -- it's a bunch of women defining their own sexuality, and god knows, god's agin' that! Really, while the difference in age between the participants in "The Little Coochie Snoocher that Could" is waved a banner for why the Monologues are evil -- the real problem seems to be with the idea that women can be sexually fulfilled without men. Separate from the more legitimate critique of the age difference we get this gem:

The girl also reveals her seducer’s ultimate lesson. “She tells me to always know how to give myself pleasure so I’ll never need to rely on a man” (Ensler 82).
(page 11)

Given that this is used as punctuation for that segment, it seems that the composer of this brochure is more concerned that women might not be relying on men more of a problem than a possibly exploitative situation. The professed concern for the sixteen year old girl is just a smokescreen. Of course, conservatives do tend to let their anxieties about maintaining the normalcy of man-on-top-woman-on-bottom sexuality override any concern for the exploitation of women's bodies (please, see anti-gay interpretations of Sodom and Gomorrah).

Oh, and in case anyone was wondering -- it appears that any expression of sexuality other than penis in vagina is perverted. Including Bob's love of looking at vaginas.

(Found the actual organization via Feministing. Encountered the logic in a editorial in the student paper at my college last year, was hoping against hope that it was an independent operative.)

Ooo...can I be a part of this agenda too?

Given my last paper was titled originally Origen and the Angry Inch, and then retitled Breaking Both the Vessels: Narrating the GenderQueer Kingdom of God, I think I'm already there.

Via Peterson Toscano (who will be in Memphis this month!), Christianity Today's take on the "Transgender Movement."

This article demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of gender identity, overlooks transgendered persons who do not feel the need for SRS, as well as genderqueer persons, gender outlaws, and any other persons floating about in the gender spectrum.

Further, anyone who is paying any attention at all when they read the Bible should be able to pick a cue here and there that gender is constructed in different ways in different times and places. Elements of gender queering remain in the New Testament -- eunuchs for the kingdom of God anyone -- even if J.C. didn't mean that statement literally, the implication of saying that in a society which considered eunuchs to be walking the line in between women and men, is certainly a striking idea. Mary of Bethany is praised for ignoring her traditional womanly gender role and taking up a studious masculine gender identity. Early church hagiography is rift with gender bending saints. The early church didn't seem to have much of a problem with "glorifying wierdos." And this is only what made it past the canon redactors.

Do a bit of digging and a lot of other stuff pops up! Joseph's "technicolor dream coat" -- yeah, the only other time that Hebrew word is used in the Bible -- it refers to the garment worn by the virgin daughters of King David.

Suggested Reading:

She's Not the Man I Married, Helen Boyd, of (en)gender -- I'm only about halfway through, but this is both clear and nuanced introduction transgenderness.
Homoerotic Narrative in Hebrew Bible, Theodore W. Jennings, Jr.
The Manly Eunuch, Matthew Kuefler
Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, Bernadette Brooten

Do these nutters never give up?

Apparently, adding "gender identity and expression" to hate crimes legislation in New Jersey endangers women and children.

How, pray tell?

“What is the protection from these people going into a restroom where they identify themselves as a different gender, yet they’re using the facilities at the same time you are?” he said. “It’s exposing children — an unintended consequence of the law.”

First, learn some English syntax and get back to me. Second, my god, restrooms -- what are us delicate women and children going to be exposed to in our nice, American style restrooms with freaking stall doors! I mean, the mens will be all right -- after all, if this hate crimes legislation doesn't get in the way, they can always beat up anyone who threatens their poor, embattled masculinity. I suppose, separate restrooms for males and females are enshrined in the Bible. No, no we can't give you a verse. But it's there. Yeah. Sure.

These people (the religious right, that is) make me sick.

Let's just hope he continues to lose his sheeps.

More Religious Madness in Memphis...

Just when you thought the buckle of the Bible Bible couldn't get any weirder...

I mean, we've got the Bellevue Baptist's mock calvary, Love In Action, Getwell CofC, more nutty things I could probably think of if I took the time, but the World Overcomers church has surpassed -- ah, I mean, overcome -- all previous expectations for lunacy. I mean, some literally freaky fundies. Read more at Theology and Geometry.

Continuing Education -- Now for M.R.S. Majors!

It's not an M.R.S. degree; it's a post-M.R.S. degree. The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is now offering a home ec. concentration for the wives of ministry students.

Not so much to knock the actual skills needed to do most of things this concentration would be teaching (clothing construction isn't easy). My observation is that to run a house well one needs talent, hard work, and skill -- whether or not one is male or female and working outside or inside the home. But, the SBC is not placing value upon the work traditionally done by women -- they are admittedly doing this to put women back in there supposedly Biblical place.

Cause, in Fundie land Jesus didn't praise Mary and scold Martha. Of course, Jesus would have never praised a woman for sitting at his feet to learn. He would have sent her back into the kitchen where she belongs. Isn't that right, duckies? Pay no attention to what your Bible actually says.

Tipped off by Religious Left Online.

Sex, Lust, Sin, and Holy Matrimony

From the "trying to figure out how fundamentalist minds function and failing" file.

This one actually surpasses the whole "women as non-sexual beings who don't experience lust themselves, but only cause it in the poor men and are must therefore be kept control" on the "buh? how'd ya figure that?" scale.

From some of the articles/sermon outlines/board discussions I've read, I get the sense that many in the evangelical community are convinced that the slightest hint of sexuality prior to marriage is going to land one in the firey pit of hell for eternity. I mean, I get the whole "he who looks at a woman with lust in his heart..." verse. My snarky response is to come back when they're ready to talk about being a eunuch for the Kingdom of God, and we'll chat about what's up with the hard sayings of Jesus.

But here's what I'm seeing as the evangelical Christian ideal: Christian boy and Christian girl meet, decide to marry with neither one entertaining any sexual or lustful thoughts about the other, marry and magically at you may now kiss the bride, they find the other sexually attractive, but not before that point. And then they produce babies, because, really it's all about the babies.

How does that work? Seriously. I can't wrap my mind around it. And I'm not talking about premarital sex -- I comprehend that. If an individual or a couple what's to wait to have sex, it's their decision, nothing wrong with it. It's not a lack of experience that I think would not work, it's the sheer amount of repression going on that strikes me as dysfunctional.

What I don't understand is this odd expectation that there will be no thoughts of sex before the actual moment of marriage. None. Nada. Nehchevo. At least, nothing specific, as having "the conversation too soon . . . only create opportunities for temptation." Being a pretty well repressed little thing, myself, I understand how it could be done, but I can't see how it works. That much repression seems to be a disaster in the making, not to mention the effects of guilt over thinking the so vaguely erotic thought. I mean, if you're repressing every erotic thought, how on earth are you supposed to know if you're actually sexually attracted to the person you're planning to marry? And given that celibate marriages aren't in style amongst evangelicals -- despite being quite popular among early Christians -- sexual attraction is a bit of an element in the arrangement. Further, how in God's name do these folks expect to people to just click repression on and off? To go from associating any erotic thoughts with dirty to pure in the time it takes a preacher to run through a ritual?

As far as I know, brains don't quite work like that. Perhaps, young evangelicals have specially wired brains that do work like that? Byt mozhet? Maybe? For their own sakes.

And I just got distracted by an article claiming that the Left has a "moral monopoly." Again, wait -- what?

Sigh. I'm now returning to my regularly scheduled contemplation of eunuchs in Early Christianity. They make so much more sense.

Fearful Fundies

It seems to me that a number of the so-called representatives of the faithful in America really aren't that faithful at all. All the moral crusaders shouting down Hindu clerics in the Senate, jumping up and down outside of abortion clinics, boycotting any company that dares to acknowledge GLBT persons -- they aren't the faithful; they are the fearful.

Obviously, that statement needs some explanation.

I hear complaints all the time that God is somehow being forced out of the public square or that pray is being forced out of the public schools. Sometimes I just roll my eyes. More recently, a think to myself -- baby, if your god is weak enough that a spineless US Congress can knock him out of the public square, then he ain't much of a god now, is he? The "faithful" apparently don't have faith in God's ability to make God's message/eternal truth heard despite any and all efforts to stop it. According to them, God must have government support. It's apparently beyond belief that God could be working through secular/modernizing/liberal/ecumenical forces to accomplish God's work. They don't have faith in a God that can work without their help or who can appear in many forms or even work behind the scenes.

Rather they are fearful that God is weak and lying in his deathbed, probably attached to a respirator. Oh, and the power went out in the hospital, and they have to desperately pedal on a stationary bike to keep that life support going. Fearful that God can't do whatever God pleases regardless of what humans do, or if humans even know God acted. It's hubris, if you ask me, to claim that God somehow needs you in order to exist and to function.

Most importantly, it seems that many of the so-called faithful have no faith in grace and mercy on the part of God. Oh, they'll claim that one is saved by grace and not by works to explain why doing good to one's fellow human beings is next to pointless in the grand scheme of things, but they don't actually believe in mercy or in grace. They don't actually have faith that God will judge them by their hearts, by their desire to know truth and to do good, and will show mercy to them should they stumble. Faith in a truly loving God is beyond them.

Nope, rather they are fearful that God is so petty as to send them to hell for the slightest of transgressions. And so it is necessary to codify everything, to kill the sense of religious mystery, to restrict wonder, to trample of the free will of other persons, to quickly capture and contain God so that they know that they are saved.

Because they aren't faithful; they are fearful.

Man, now I feel sorry for them.

Hell and the Drama-Llama

So...apparently, I'm going to hell.

Probably the sin that'll get me there is my love of drama. Or, at least, a certain type of drama. The kind where I get my fix from watching Church of Christ discussion boards and occassionally poke at things with my stick of left field thought.

So here's what I've noticed: Gays and female-bodied individuals trying to assert their personhood gets the panties of a decent number of CofC hard-liners into a twist. Try to tell someone that the way they were taught to look at the Bible in Sunday School isn't the only way to look at the Bible and some folks will get even crankier and go ad hominem. But if you really want a immortal Drama Llama in a CofC discussion board, bring up instrumental music.

This is song that never ends, yes, it goes on and on my friends...

The discussion boils down into: We have no authorization in scripture to use instruments. Yeah, and instruments also aren't forbidden -- we don't need explicit authorization. Yes, we do. No, we don't. Yes, we do. No, we don't. Continue until your cows come home.

So, one guy gets frustrated with this (can't imagine why, I'm with him on that point) and posts a message about how there are better things that could be done with time. Now, I'm kinda with him up until this point -- I'm all about debating, but instrumental music is the least of my concerns. But, what should Christians be spending their time on -- diving into yet another Facebook discussion board, but this time to seek and save the lost of the group, "So...apparently I'm going to hell."

Yeah, so I take this as an example of obliviousness to the real reason why folks like me joke about how we're going to hell. And a whole lot of evangelicals showing up to explain again that the Bible tells us we're all going to hell isn't going to do much of anything -- except maybe produce some giggles. Baby, baby, we don't accept your rules. Some of us don't read your Bible. Some of us read the Bible, but we don't read it like you. Sweetheart, who died and made you God?

It reminds me of the technique espoused by Kirk Cameron (Lady Sophia, bless him, you can tell he only wants to help -- he's like an over eager puppy) and Ray Comfort (who frightens me) of confronting people with the Ten Commandments to "prove" that they are sinners who need a fall into the arms of the church with tears streaming done the sides of their faces. I sort of want to run into these guys and just start interrogating them on just what makes them think that I myself think the Ten Commandments define ultimate right and ultimate wrong. (Yes, I know I would get nowhere fast, but I take that journey frequently. And yes, it would be in my best Southern Belle voice.) Or just start going on about how the Buddha has compassion for you and desires to bring enlightenment to you. Or something similar -- I don't know, quote the Gita back at 'em.

But yeah, duckies, hell isn't a threat to a lot of us, quite frankly. It's one of those things you hear so often it just doesn't mean anything. It's a threat tossed around without thought, so we think nothing of it.

Cause Religious Freedom Apparently Only Applies to Evangelical Christian...

Again from Gandhi, "I like their Christ, but not their Christians."

Hindu Prayer in Senate Disrupted

I think Barry Lynn from Americans United For Separation of Church and State hits the nail on the head:

“America is a land of extraordinary religious diversity, and the Religious Right just can’t seem to accept that fact,” Lynn continued. “I don’t think the Senate should open with prayers, but if it’s going to happen, the invocations ought to reflect the diversity of the American people.”

But, what's the problem with a Hindu prayer opening the Senate? (I love Hindu services, myself.) We turn to the original American Family Association action alert to find out how these minds (dys)function.

Well, apparently, senators might hear that there are scriptures other than the Bible.

in his prayer he will likely include references to ancient Hindu scriptures, including Rig Veda, Upanishards, and Bhagavard-Gita.

They can't see Upanishads or Bhagavad-Gita correctly -- sounds like their research is top-notch. And I'm sure no one will admit that the Rig Veda is the oldest scripture known to mankind. But what other reasons could their be?

Well, Hinduism isn't a monotheistic religion.

"In Hindu, you have not one God, but many, many, many, many, many gods," the Christian historian explains. "And certainly that was never in the minds of those who did the Constitution, did the Declaration [of Independence] when they talked about Creator -- that's not one that fits here because we don't know which creator we're talking about within the Hindu religion."

Actually, buddy, and I might be wrong here because I have hardly scratched the surface of Hinduism, I think Hindus generally do know what Creator they are talking about because creation is a specific aspect of the Divine Being. Oh, and, Hinduism isn't polytheistic either -- the many gods are all different aspects of one God. So, in a way, Hinduism is more monotheistic than Christianity that has had so many problems working out the relation between the members of the Trinity.

It burns! The bigoted ignorance burns!

Exhibit A: Silencing

And, in today's Post we have an article showing an actual case where political force was exerted in order to censor a person. Assuming, of course, that the ex-Surgeon General is telling the truth, which given this administration, I'm inclined to believe that he is.

Ex-Surgeon General Says the White House Hushed Him

"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried," he said. "The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds."

But, I mean, it's perfectly okay to censor information about the effectiveness of teaching kids how to use condoms in high school sex ed classes, or the facts about emergency contraception, or stem cell research. After all, you're not actually playing with people's lives and health when you do that. And if you are, well, you prayed about it with Pat Robertson or James Dobson, Jesus wants you to do it, right? Besides it's mostly kids and women who are hurt, and they aren't actually people, you know.

I commented earlier to a friend regarding the Pope announcing Catholicism to be the only true church, that Jesus must have popped a couple of migraine pills and is laid out flat on his back in a darkened room in heaven praying to himself for it to just stop. I think that expression works here too.