Friday Fundamentalist Farce File #6

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someone

It takes a lot of time to generate the Farce File, but it still feels like shooting fish in a barrel.  OneNewsNow is almost too easy to debunk.  It’s definitely still fun though, until you get weeks like this where the shit really piles up.

This week’s themes: 1) Let’s legislate religion and pretend we’re not! 2) Racism!  And lots of it!


blog-bullet 5/23/09 – Okla. governor signs bill allowing Ten Commandments monument

A friend of mine was applying for a job in Oklahoma, and I cited this as why I would probably not consider moving there ever.

Apparently, the bill’s sponsor is going to use $10,000 of his family funds to pay for the monument.  If I were one of the kids in that family, I’d be pissed:

Dad, that’s my college education you’re spending on a big rock that violates the first amendment!
Oh, don’t worry, son.  It’s only going to honor the historical significance, not the religious significance
Weren’t they historically destroyed the first time around?  I’ll start working on my golden calf to set things in motion.

Just a friendly reminder of what the Oklahomans are going to put in their state capitol. (I copied the version from the Texas State Capitol, since no two versions look alike.  Ugh, that monument is awful with the flag and the eagle and… ugh.)

I AM the LORD thy God.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images.
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
Honor thy father and thy mother that…

Sorry, I can’t be bothered.  Historical significance my ass.  It’s unconstitutional.

blog-bullet BONUS – Get TEA buttons, stickers, and shirts.  They should charge a whole lot more for that shit, since the only people whose taxes are going up is the group in the highest tax bracket.  They can afford to buy much pricier stickers.  They definitely don’t need free shipping.

blog-bullet 5/24/09 – Prison inmates awarded ministry degrees

You know what?  I’m just going to let this article speak for itself.  No commentary will be necessary:

PARCHMAN, MS – New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary has awarded bachelor’s degrees in Christian Ministry to 28 inmates at the Mississippi State Penitentiary.

With caps and gowns draped over their prison stripes, the new ministers — many of them convicted rapists and murderers — accepted their degrees.

Their graduation speaker was Burl Cain, longtime warden at the Louisiana State Penitentiary. He urged the new ministers to help transform prison culture through their faith.

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary first began offering prison courses to Louisiana inmates in 1996 and now works with correctional systems in Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida.

A similar program administered by Columbia International University operates in South Carolina. It graduated 15 inmates in December.

I wonder how many liberal arts electives are required to get a bachelor’s in Christian Ministry in prison.  I also wonder if they had to pay $30 for their caps and gowns like other students (myself included, on top of some random graduation fee) do.

For the record, I am all about educating prisoners and helping them learn and grow.  I am against, however, indoctrinating and “saving” them.

blog-bullet 5/25/09 – There was no Daily News Brief for Memorial Day.  OneNewsNow does not observe the Sabbath (despite the fact the Bible dictates that they should), but they do apparently observe national holidays.  Those fundamentalists are so patriotic.

blog-bullet 5/26/09 – 2010: The year of the Bible?

Yup.  There is actually a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives proposing this.  (If nothing else, go look at the wonderful poll OneNewsNow did about the chances of this bill passing.)

Here’s what I hate most about this ridiculous waste of taxpayers’ money and representation: the fact that people have to defend being against this bill.

Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) says he is not against the Bible or the resolution, but simply believes the bill endorses religion and adds that the federal government should stay out of such matters.

Did Nadler really feel like he had to make sure people knew he wasn’t against the Bible?  If more people actually read the Bible, they might be against it too.  There’s some pretty atrocious stuff in there.  (I’m currently enjoying David Plotz’s The Good Book.  Check it out on

Of course, this bill isn’t about Christianity.

Broun claims the bill actually has nothing to do with Christianity. He is simply urging Americans to return to the biblical foundation that he contends established and built America.

I think he missed the part where almost all the founding fathers were secularists.  Oh, and the Treaty of Tripoli thing…

blog-bullet 5/27/09 – Perspective: Not all ‘compelling personal stories’ are equal

I think I’m going to have to write up a whole separate post about “racism” in relation to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.  In this Perspective piece, Michelle Malkin gives us plenty to work with.

Republicans are not allowed to mention Sotomayor’s ethnicity lest they be branded bigots, but every Democrat on cable television harped on her multicultural “diversity” and “obstacle”-climbing. Obama made sure to roll his r’s when noting that her parents came from Puerrrrto Rrrrico. New York Sen. Charles Schumer stated outright: “It’s long overdue that a Latino sit on the United States Supreme Court.” Color-coded tokenism dominated the headlines, with blaring references to Sotomayor as the high court’s potential “first Hispanic.”

Wow, so much to unpack.  Let’s see.  “Diversity” is diversity.  “Obstacles” are obstacles.  I think honoring the native pronunciation of an American territory is respectful.  Was it tokenism that Obama would become the first Black President?  There’s just too much White privilege to unpack, which is kind of scary since Malkin is actually Filipina.

You know what, I can’t even continue with this.  I’ll post about this later if I gather the patience to unpack all the privilege.

blog-bullet BONUS – Supreme Court nominee supports reverse discrimination.  Yup.  A special alert with one of the most racist ideas in its headline.  In case you didn’t know it, “reverse discrimination” is what people in the privileged group say when they realize they’re losing some of their power.  It’s self-victimization to protest the evening of the playing field.  Read just how petty the attacks are:

Dear Zack,

Here is a brief look at President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court. You may want to forward this to your friends.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

President Obama has promised to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences based on “empathy” instead of neutrally in applying the law. In selecting Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his promise.

In a speech as a Court of Appeals judge, she said, “The court is where policy is made.” Her opinions have followed that approach. What she was referring to was that public policy was made by the Court of Appeals, not by the Legislature.

In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor ruled that reverse racism was to be used in making decisions. She ruled in favor of a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. In Ricci, an applicant to be a firefighter scored the highest on the test but was denied the job because he was not black.

According to Judge Jose Cabranes, Sotomayor’s colleague, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case,” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.” Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed disappointment with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”

Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech given at Berkeley, she said she believes it is appropriate for judges to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her record of reversals by the Supreme Court. Sixty percent of her decisions have been reversed by the Supreme Court.



Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

blog-bullet 5/28/09 – Group urges IRS review of Liberty tax exemption

Hehe… some follow-up to my post about Liberty University and their decision to not recognize the Democratic student club.  There’s not a lot of new stuff to report here, but it might be interesting to see how things play out.  This was enjoyable though:

Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University law school, calls the complaint “frivolous” and says Liberty will ask the IRS to review whether Americans United should lose its tax-exempt status for regularly supporting Democratic Party positions.

Considering students attending Liberty University are probably using federal financial aid, I think there’s a pretty big difference between the two organizations, but then again I’m not dean of a law school.

You know how the hyenas giggle whenever they hear “Mufasa!“?  That’s sort of how I am every time I see the words Liberty University law school.

blog-bullet 5/29/09 – Sotomayor labeled “Hispanic supremacist”

Okay, I’m going to address one more racist claim about Sotomayor and then leave it be.  Hopefully this meme has a shorter life than Carrie Prejean’s spotlight.

A profile published by the American Bar Association reveals that President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court is a member of the National Council of La Raza, which supports illegal immigration and is considered by many Americans to be a racist organization.

Notice how they didn’t say “allegedy supports” or “has been accused of supporting.”

Are you not familiar with National Council of La Raza?  Let’s take a look at their mission statement:

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) – the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States – works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans. Through its network of nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations (CBOs), NCLR reaches millions of Hispanics each year in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. To achieve its mission, NCLR conducts applied research, policy analysis, and advocacy, providing a Latino perspective in five key areas – assets/investments, civil rights/immigration, education, employment and economic status, and health. In addition, it provides capacity-building assistance to its Affiliates who work at the state and local level to advance opportunities for individuals and families.

Wow, is it just me or do they sound dastardly and unAmerican?  Just kidding.

So let’s see what William Gheen has to say.  As the president of the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, a group of paranoid xenophobes who call themselves “peaceful” and “nonracist” despite advocating for inherently authoritarian and racist policies, I’m sure he has some wise, objective words about NCLR and Sotomayor. (He’s white, by the way, in case you were wondering.)

“We do not need a Hispanic supremacist on the Supreme Court. This woman is openly affiliated with a racist organization, La Raza, and is making overt racist comments — and it is against the spirit of American law to define laws based on race,” he notes. “We’ve spent decades getting America away from that. And now Obama is trying to throw that backwards by presenting an Hispanic supremacist to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

I like how he made sure to say “Hispanic supremacist” and “racist” each twice.  Really?  She wants to overthrow the Whites?  She wants to impose El Imperio or something?  (That was my attempt to demonstrate that Gheen is a hair’s breadth away from invoking Godwin’s Law.)

For the umpteenth time this week, we hear white people accusing Sotomayor for being racist because she has supported work that supports the nation’s Latino/a population.  Isn’t that convenient?  People… who have privilege… making inaccurate accusations… at the expense of racial advocacy groups… to portray themselves as victims.

I got news, folks.  That’s racism.  That’s white privilege.  That is the sound of bigotry, and I would not be surprised if it sounded the same for any other candidate of color who has ever—heaven forbid—advocated on behalf of hir race.

And it disgusts me.

There’s your Farce File.  Walkaway lesson?  Don’t legislate religion and don’t ever try to validate “reverse discrimination.”  You’ll look less stupid if you don’t.

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someone
Back to Top | Scroll down for Comments!

There are 13 Comments to "Friday Fundamentalist Farce File #6"

  • Anastasia says:

    What does the AFA have to do with the TEA stuff? AFA supposedly promotes biblical values, which I’m pretty sure has nothing to do with taxes. If anything, they should be willing to pay high taxes to help their neighbors. Grr.

    I like your use of the idea of privilege when discussing Sotomayor. I hadn’t ever really thought about privilege, probably because I’ve been able to overcome sexism in my life for the most part, but it’s a really big problem. I just finished reading “Investigating Christian Privilege and Religious Oppression in the United States” (thanks, Ames library!) and have had my eyes opened!

  • Burr Deming says:

    In fairness, we should consider the arguments against the judge.

  • ZackFord says:

    Burr, I let your comment be posted because I care about maintaining transparency on my blog, but please do not think that you will ever get anywhere with language like “activist judge.”

    Activist judge is just another code word for “my privilege is being challenged.” Judges can’t legislate from the bench and everybody knows it. What they can do is make sure the rights of minorities are preserved, and if that means OVERTURNING laws, that is their responsibility.

    If you have a real argument to make, make it. “I don’t like this empathy thing because she’ll over turn my discriminatory laws” isn’t going to cut it.

  • AFA Fan says:

    okay where is the debunk? Your intellect is not amazing. Apparently, no one reads your stuff so you must be lonely and angry. If you hate our stuff why do you read it so much? One other thing get a hold of the constitution and read it. You must only read what people say about the constitution. Have you really studied the constitution from more than a basic high school text book perspective?

  • Dan Smith says:

    I was once conditioned to react like a pavlov dog like you are. You hear any white person say anything critical about a non white person and your mind is conditioned to leap to the false conclusions of racism. It has been pounded into your head since you were were but a child here in America. If you continue to develop, you may grow out of it one day and realize that your knee jerk liberal reactions were taught to you as a form of conditioning and serve to prevent more detailed and rational thought. Notice how you simply wipe away any concerns about Sonia Sotomayer and La Raza by leaping to the assumption that such concerns about them are merely the product of character flaws in the messengers you are attacking. Somewhere in the back of your mind there is a little voice that will pop up sometimes that says “What if im wrong and completely on the wrong path” and that voice will be true. The question will be if you will ever listen to that voice and change or will you stay pickled in a false reality like a good and well trained new Global citizen?

  • ZackFord says:

    Wow, this is great.

    AFA Fan and Dan: I can’t tell if either of you actually had a point to make other than to attack me, but I will respond thus.

    I am extremely privileged in many ways:
    I’m white.
    I’m male.
    I have a lot of great friends (though feel free to believe otherwise, AFA Fan).
    I also have had a great amount of education, which included beginning my journey to understand my white privilege.

    I’m going to be spending my whole life trying to understand my white privilege, but I’ve made enough progress that I can call it when I see it.

    Nothing has been pounded into my head. I have done research. I have studied identity development theory. I have studied concepts of power, privilege, and difference. I have engaged with many bright individuals who know a lot about these topics. I have learned and grown by my own choice, and I’m a better person for it.

    I’m also not blindly advocating for Sotomayor. We still have a lot to learn about her. My point is simply that the claims made that I addressed here are not valid ones; they are motivated by white privilege, and probably some male privilege too.

    You all are welcome to believe whatever you want, but do not come on to my blog and just make baseless attacks. I blog to create debate so that we all can learn, and so far I have learned nothing from you.

  • Mark says:

    I literally laughed out loud at the liberty story. When will people learn that Christianity theology DOES NOT equal Republican ideology? Liberty should almost not be an accredited University.

  • Mark says:

    AND if a law firm actually recruits from the Liberty Law School remind me not to have that law firm represent me if I ever need one.

  • Gladys says:

    It might not be a bad idea to giver your own critique of sotomayor. It might help fend off your attackers.

  • ZackFord says:

    Haha, I care not for fending off attackers when their words have no significance.

    Besides, it is the Senate’s job to determine if she is qualified. I have no basis at this point to make any such critique. My goal is only to call out those who do try to critique and in such irrational, privileged ways.

  • Zebra says:

    I’m going to cherry-pick from Dan Smith’s comment for the kernel of truth (but only when milled away from the chaff surrounding it, and the certainty mitigated with conditional verbs):

    “Somewhere in the back of your mind there is a little voice that will pop up sometimes that says “What if im wrong and completely on the wrong path” and that voice [could] be true. The question will be if you will ever listen to that voice and change…”

    Here’s the ironic thing. Someone who barges through a life of privilege and only ever suggests that OTHER people need to think/act differently, is likely to be a narrow-minded bigot, though obviously the changes of him noticing this fact & accepting it are low.

    It’s the people who, for whatever reason & on the basis of whatever experience and/or introspection, actually DO think frequently about whether or not they’re wrong as they walk carefree down that path of privilege with blinders on, & who listen to that voice (and to other people, of all types) – THEY are closer to seeing the world as it really is, and can appreciate the diversity of our pluralistic society (and the people in it).

    For those for whom the Christian bible has value, I’ll remind you that Jesus was inclusionary – he spent time, on purpose, with those who were on the fringes of society at that time, and were in at least some ways different from him, and yet he isn’t reported to have chastised himself (or been chastised by dad) for doing so. Paul, on the other hand, was exclusionary – he put up fences (theologically) and tried to draw people inside his fence, then keep them inside his fence, and to warn them about the various dangers of behaving like an outside-his-fence person or of being influenced by someone outside-his-fence.

  • Zebra says:

    …or as syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr pointed out in his column today, if confirmed, Sotamayor will be the 113rd person ever to take a seat on the Supreme Court. Of the preceding 112, guess how many have been white men?

    …that would be: 108 (= 96.4% of 112)

    Have any of them ever been questioned about their white, male, presumably mostly straight “identity politics”??

Cancel Reply

Write a Comment