Monday, October 03, 2005

Waking the Dead with a Rubber Chicken

The Parable of Jesus and the Rubber Chicken
What if Christ spoke at a Republican Party fund-raiser?

Hello Fellow Travellers!

I've had arguments with Right WingNuts until I just walk away utterly stunned at the contortions of Biblical Scripture and the corruption of Jesus teachings. This amazing effort that they put into pusdo-spiritual gymnastics - just blows my mind.

To tell the truth, it would blow your mind too if I could document and then play back on this website what these radical, arch-conservative Christians go through & say to justify Biblically and in the Name of Jesus (and being a Good Christian) what they think and do. It is such shocking greed, entitled arrogance, disregard for the poor, contempt for the less fortunate and a revulsion of the truly meek (be it by age, infirmity or some other criteria).

Yup - just blow your mind. I can't even crack the facade of their beliefs - not woth Jesus own words, not with Scripture, not with appeal to moral values, not with a call to conservative compassion. Just can't do it.

Until now - this little piece below has cracked that foundationof more than three conservatives I know. How? Humor, satire and a mirror.

Check it out - I thinkyou'll like it too. Show your friends.......

The Parable of Jesus and the Rubber Chicken
What if Christ spoke at a Republican Party fund-raiser?
By Tom PeyerPosted Thursday, Aug. 25, 2005, at 4:21 AM PT


Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to have a hard time living up to an introduction like that. (LAUGHTER)

First, let Me express My gratitude for your support over the last few years. It's nice to be thought of as a winner for a change. If I had known we'd get the House, the Senate, and two consecutive terms in the White House (APPLAUSE)—if I'd known all that, I would have had an easier time that Friday on the Cross, let me tell you. (LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE)

But seriously, folks (LAUGHTER)—no, seriously, that day did pass, and then two more. Then I rose from the dead. (CHEERS, APPLAUSE) Thank you. I rose from the dead and I flew up to Heaven. But first, you'll remember, I made a little side trip to Hell (SCATTERED BOOS) just to get a look at how they do things. And I'm here to tell you, Hell is just like Heaven (AUDIBLE GASPS)—but with taxes. (LAUGHTER, CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

I'd especially like to thank President Bush, who gave me a free Pioneer membership. (AUDIBLE GASPS, MUTTERING) Was I not supposed to say that? Sorry. My point is, the president's a good man. The only real difference between Me and him is his daddy found a way to forgive Bill Clinton. (WILD APPLAUSE)

This president married well, too. He married a woman. (CHEERS, APPLAUSE) That's the right way. That's the way my Dad intended. Respect the sanctity of marriage. Now a few loud people keep saying the government should forget about sanctity, forget about religion. They want separation of church and state. See these hands? See the holes in them? That's separation of church and state. (APPLAUSE) I know George W. Bush, and I know he won't ever let that happen to me again. (CHEERS, APPLAUSE)

Ken Mehlman asked me to come down here today to meet with you good people and clear up a few things you've been wondering about. I told him I'd be glad to eat a little crow for a good cause. You'll forgive me if I read a brief prepared statement, but Ken and my Dad want me to get this just right. (LAUGHTER) Here goes.

"In My youth, I made certain ill-advised statements that I now regret. If I offended anyone, I apologize. I want to clarify that it is easy for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. (CHEERS, WILD APPLAUSE)

"I'd like to apologize specifically to the money-changers. It is My sincere hope that you will come back into the Temple free of charge as My guests." (WILD APPLAUSE, CHANT OF "U.S.A! U.S.A!")

Finally—and this is Me speaking for Myself now—I want to say to the meek: Once we finally get rid of the death tax, you're not inheriting anything. Not while you're meek, so buck up. (CHEERS) And that goes double for you peacemakers. (LAUGHTER) Good night and Dad bless America. (CHEERS, WILD APPLAUSE)

Tom Peyer is a co-editor of O Holy Cow: The Selected Verses of Phil Rizzuto. Still from The Gospel of John on the Slate home page by Toronto Film Studios/Zuma Press.

Kinda stuns ya and amkes ya laugh all at the same time......

See what I mean?

Peace Out -


Sunday, October 02, 2005

Creationism vs. Intelligent Design

Are Creationism vs. Intelligent Design Different?
What Progressives, Liberals & Democrats Need to know!

Ok - I'll say it. As Liberal, Progressive, and/or Democratic Christians we need to know the difference between Creationism vs. Intelligent Design.

Is there a difference? The answer is YES! The Radical Right's neo-luddite response to the pain of the very words "Evolutionary Biology" is not to wrangle with the tough nuggets of paradox, but rather to attack science and fact with emotional generalities, social mythology and an almost vaudvillian atack on Evolutionary Biology. And Daniel Engber's article on posted Tuesday, May 10, 2005, is below and should help us identify the two headed beast that with all its thorny abberation of scripture.

Daniel writes:

Critics who argue that evolution should not be taught as scientific fact presented their case to the State Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas, last week. Testimony is scheduled to resume on Thursday, and the board expects to make a decision on whether to change its science standards this summer. The public hearings have pitched proponents of evolution against those who subscribe to "Intelligent Design." Is Intelligent Design the same thing as Creationism?

No. Intelligent Design adherents believe only that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that "designer" could in theory be anything or anyone. In 1802, William Paley used the "divine watchmaker" analogy to popularize the design argument

If we assume that a watch must have been fashioned by a watchmaker, then we should assume that an ordered universe must have been fashioned by a divine Creator. Many traditional Creationists have embraced this argument over the years, and most, if not all, modern advocates for Intelligent Design are Christians who believe that God is the designer.

Creationism comes in many varieties, from the strictest biblical literalism (according to which the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and flat) to the theistic evolutionism of the Catholic Church (which accepts evidence that the Earth is millions of years old, and that evolution can explain much of its history—but not the creation of the human soul). Between those extremes, there are "Young-Earth" and "Old-Earth" creationists, who differ over the age of the planet and the details of how God created life.

The limited scope of Intelligent Design theory makes it compatible with a wide range of views. Some prominent ID theorists believe in evolution—or at least that species can change over time—and many believe that the Earth was created more than 10,000 years ago. But there are also ID theorists who believe in a literal reading of Genesis.

Young-Earth creationists have criticized the Intelligent Design movement for encouraging a loose reading of the Bible. The design theorists respond that ID represents at least the "partial truth" and that it is, at the very least, the best available tool for dislodging what they see as evolutionist dogma.

Now THAT wasn't so painful - was it? Our little human minds can handle both GOD, the beauty of the Bible and Evolutionary Biology....without the need to deamonize, distory and stamp out His evolutionary laws of Biology with our 3,500+ year old Biblical parables - yes?

After all...isn't everything His creation?

Peace -


Fair Use Notice: This site contains material which may be copyrighted, the use of which may not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, spiritual, political, philosophical, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, environmental and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.