Agape Press is on a Roll Today
AgapePress has a pair of hi-larious stories posted today. Let’s check ’em out, starting with this one:
Nebraska Pastor’s State Senate Prayer Pushes Some Lawmakers’ Buttons
By Mary Rettig
January 27, 2006(AgapePress) – A Nebraska minister caused an uproar in the State Senate Tuesday when he delivered the morning prayer for that day’s session. Pastor Tim Swartley of Elm Creek says he was asked by his senator, Jim Cudaback, to deliver the invocation which left several senators outraged.
“I did pray that God would forgive us for abortion,” Swartley explains. “I prayed that God would forgive us for teaching our children the religion of evolution, which really does tell us [its version of] where we came from and why we’re here and where we’re going, just as the Bible does. It’s a competing philosophy of life.”
Evolution is a scientific theory about gradual biological development that’s based on facts and evidence. It does not tell us why we’re here or where we’re going. Mr. Swartley has obviously never opened a science book in his life (surprise, surprise).
Rules have been established for those giving the Nebraska Senate’s morning invocation, the Elm Creek pastor acknowledges — rules that include not praying about what is on the day’s agenda and not praying about political issues. He feels his prayer followed these directives.
“I look at abortion and evolution as primarily moral issues,” Swartley says. “Politics, I think, is secondary; and whatever party you are, if you’re going to support biblical values, I’m all for it. But I did not intend to support any political agenda.”
“I mean, why would anyone think that my desire to establish a Jesusocracy has anything to do with politics?”
The pastor adds that, although he feels bad about the turmoil, he believes he was led to pray as he did on Tuesday morning. He contends that his prayer, though strongly worded, was exactly what God wanted him to say.
I think you misheard God, buddy. He really said, “Don’t utter forth such tripe, thou moron! Thou makest Me looketh like a wanker!”
Senator Ernie Chambers claims he was “enraged” by Swartley’s prayer, although he says he makes a point not to be present during the legislative body’s invocation. Since the incident, Chambers has renewed his calls to get rid of the morning prayer altogether.
I really don’t blame him. This is why church and state should, frankly, be kept seperate.
OK, our next super-funny article is about a Florida university that made the grave mistake of treating its gay employees like actual human beings, instead of just firing them like God would have wanted:
A constitutional attorney says the University of Florida (UF) is seeking to advance a radical pro-homosexual agenda with its new healthcare plan for employees.
Under the UF plan, the so-called “domestic partners” of both homosexual and heterosexual employees are eligible for health insurance coverage as long as they are having sex. In order to qualify, employees must declare they are involved in a “non-platonic” relationship.
Because if two gay people are involved non-platonically, that must mean they’re having filthy, nasty sex all the time. Non-platonic heterosexual couples, on the other hand, just sit around on Friday nights sewing quilts and watching re-runs of Antique Roadshow.
Steve Crampton, chief counsel with the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, says, in this case, homosexuality appears to be the preferred lifestyle of the State of Florida.
I wonder if Jeb Bush will be using this in his re-election ads. “Hi there, I’m governor Jeb Bush. When I was first elected, Florida consisted mostly of right-wing Cubans and retired Jewish ladies- not exactly a party culture. But thanks to my bold leadership, Florida can now boast homosexuality as its preferred lifestyle. Florida: we’re as gay as Massachusetts and we’ve got Mickey Mouse.”
He notes that the UF healthcare plan favors same-sex couples over other unmarried people living together in a household for more legitimate reasons.
Because there’s nothing legitimate about gay people wanting companionship.
“So here’s a daughter who may be supporting an invalid mother, or a young man who has taken in a dying uncle, unable to work,” Crampton posits. “Or how about the Christian who has taken in a homeless man who’s out of work and down on his luck, and he’s just trying to help him out? Forget it — you can’t get these benefits.”
There’s a really good way to solve this, you know. It’s called national health insurance.
The UF healthcare plan seems indifferent to the predicament of people who are living with someone that is not their spouse or their child and for whom they are assuming some measure of financial responsibility but with whom they are not sleeping, the AFA Law Center spokesman points out. “But if you’re part of a homosexual couple and you swear that you’re having sex,” he says, “well, by golly, we’ve got taxpayer-funded health benefits for you.”
And I don’t pay taxes just so a couple of gays can get health insurance! What the hell!
The pro-family attorney feels it is not only unlawful but ridiculous and impractical for the University of Florida to specifically insure homosexual employees despite their higher risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases and other costly health problems.
I agree. By the same measure, the university shouldn’t insure smokers or fatties either. And say, don’t black people carry greater risk of heart disease? Well shoot, no insurance for them either! ROFLMFAO! Preventing undesirables from obtaining health care is awesome! And if we keep it up, the whole country’s gonna eventually look like this:
“I’m Chris Flickinger, and I put the ‘crack’ in ‘cracker!'”
The UF domestic partner benefits plan requires unmarried, cohabitating university employees to sign a pledge affirming they are having sex in their relationship in order to qualify.
No it doesn’t. Employees simply have to affirm that they’re “non-platonic.” That doesn’t mean per se that they’re having sex (though I’ll concede that it’s highly probable).
Crampton sees that as the virtual equivalent of telling employees who smoke that they must promise they’re smoking three packs of cigarettes a day in order to receive medical coverage.
And yet, the Law Center attorney asserts, this “unconstitutional” policy reflects a mindset prevalent at universities all over the U.S. He believes it is a mindset that favors homosexuality and confers that lifestyle with special status, without regard for the Constitution or common sense.
“When you consider this policy and the explicit support, not just of out-of-wedlock sex but homosexual sex, as a condition for receiving health benefits — and I recognize they include heterosexual couples here — there’s no doubt that the real motivation behind these policies is advancement of the homosexual agenda,” Crampton says.
And when you consider that Crampton focuses on nothing but sex — not just out-of-wedlock sex but homosexual sex — there’s no doubt that he’s really motivated by the fear and/or hidden desire of watching two dudes make out.
Or how about the Christian who has taken in a homeless man who’s out of work and down on his luck, and he’s just trying to help him out? You know, in exchange for sex?
It’s still a stupid policy. And Grotesqueticle, I was thinking the same thing (dirty little mind)
Filtering out the wingnut white noise …why on earth do the gay students have to be having sex before they can get the healthcare? That seems a bit odd.
The pro-family attorney feels it is not only unlawful but ridiculous and impractical for the University of Florida to specifically insure homosexual employees despite their higher risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases and other costly health problems.
Yeah, lesbian couples are really known for their high risk of contracting HIV…what’s that? Sadly, no!
But of course, the homophobes don’t really believe in lesbians anyway.
Well, presumably, the “non-platonic” clause is to prevent, say, a large group living communally from all taking advantage of the university’s healthcare package when only one of them actually works for the university. So, in fact, it’s an anti-comminism rule, not a pro-queer one. You’d think the wingnuts at Agape could get behind that, huh?
Florida consisted mostly of right-wing Cubans and retired Jewish ladies- not exactly a party culture.
Well, to be fair, that was just South Florida. Up here in the Tampa area, it’s rednecks. Lots and lots of rednecks.
Which, under certain circumstances, can be a decent party culture.
Which, under certain circumstances, can be a decent party culture.
Agreed.
Why is it that anybody’s name that starts with “Pastor” is a total asshole?
I heard the UF dude on NPR the other day and he said they were withdrawing the requirement…
mikey
So here’s a daughter who may be supporting an invalid mother, or a young man who has taken in a dying uncle, unable to work
Hm…a person taking care of a physically and finacially dependent relative can usually get legal caretaker status that would allow them to get insurance….
Oh, maybe it’s the “invalid” and the “dying” part that the insurance companies are balking at.
Oh ambi girl, it’s not that lesbians don’t exist. It’s just that, lacking “little soldiers,” they’re ineffectual.
I think that one can make a point that the UF policy is discriminatory, while it pushes unmarried couples to be non-platonic, it treats its married employees with indifference.
Imagine the effects of more equitable policy.
“I have a deadache tonight.
Phyllis, we risking our insurance coverage!”
The policy didn’t literally require people to have sex. That’s how it was misconstrued, and apparently the language is being re-written.
Yes, Thumper, thanks for reminding me….those little men in boats are as nothing against the little soldiers.
So to speak.
I’m a graduate of UF (1997) and spent about six years living in Gainesville, and this guy’s pissin’ in the wind. That is one gay-friendly school in one gay-friendly town. I’m sure things may’ve changed since I left in ’99, but coming as I did from rural Mississippi, I was shocked at just how little of a shit most people gave about others’ sexuality (beyond personal interest, of course).
Where I grew up, there were no gay people…or at least, no one who said anything about it if they knew what was good for ’em. I never rolled around in the homophobia of my peers, but I must admit that as a teenager, any thought of teh gay freaked me right out. Gainesville and UF opened my eyes and unclogged my rear-end of my head on the matter. Not only did one dumb-ass country boy learn that not all gay men wanted in my pants and not all lesbian women were just waiting around for a threesome, but they were just like us normal folks. I also learned that drag queens are a riot to go drinking with, especially if you can swing into a semi-redneck joint with ’em.
The policy’s wording may be cluttered, but I’d be awfully surprised if gay employees did get some sort of health care. Florida…man, what an experience. Key West on one end, some of the scariest rednecks on God’s green earth on the other (and that’s counting Alabama) and complete madness in between.
Swartley deliberately violated rules surrounding the morning invocation, then disingenuously said he was addressing moral issues rather than political ones. I fucking hate martyrs – and also news whores who intentionally stir trouble just for something to complain about.
Chris Flicklinger looks like he stepped out of 1956.
Me, I view evolution as a scientific issue, not a moral one. But I think we’ve spotted the weak point in the entire argument there.
My partner’s health insurance covers domestic partners, and yeah, you have to sign something that says you’re actually partners rather than roommates, etc.
It doesn’t cover the two housemates we’ve taken in because they lost their jobs and their apartments, so they don’t have insurance.
And by the way, Mr Crampton, none of us are Christian. I know you threw that in as a little bit of Only Christians Engage In Charity Toward Their Fellow Men propaganda, but fuck you. Would your ideal world *really* require my partner’s health insurance company to cover *all* the evolutionist atheist feminist democrats in our household?
It’s still cheaper than any of our friends’ families with their spouses and three kids, but it’s still pretty stupid.
As Brad noted, the solution is called “universal single-payer health care”. But that’s probably communism, too.
I gotta admit, “Fuck me or else you don’t get health isurance” seems like a pretty dumb policy.
The Gators still suck. Go ‘Canes!
Whenever I read the name “Agape” I think of a slack-jawed, glazed-eyed facial expression. Perfect!
But Andrew, why is “marry me or else you don’t get health insurance” a better policy?
again, we go back to national health insurance.
I’m glad I don’t live in Florida anymore. I live in WA now, and I don’t have to have sex with my wife to get insurance.
He notes that the UF healthcare plan favors same-sex couples over other unmarried people living together in a household
Of course, those “other unmarried people” have the option of becoming “married people” (if they’re of the opposite sex), so the radical pro-gayism of the UF health-plan kind of evens out.
Please don’t put that Chris Flickinger photo up again. Whenever I see that insipid smile I want to puke.
“Evolution is a scientific theory about gradual biological development that’s based on facts and evidence. It does not tell us why we’re here or where we’re going. Mr. Swartley has obviously never opened a science book in his life (surprise, surprise).”
Yes, it is true that evolution tells us why we’re here and where we’re going, but it does so, only on a superficial level.
In all fairness, however, however, I must say that the senator’s prayer probably didn’t get much further than the senate floor. It wasn’t meant for God’s ears as much as it was meant for the ears of liberal senators.
Isn’t a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases associated with the number of sexual partners, rather than orientation? So, wouldn’t one want to encourage stable, monogamous, gay relationships?
Which study or studies are you referring to, dAVE?
So how does homosexuality fit in with evolution?
“So how does homosexuality fit in with evolution?”
It is an evolutionary dead end.
It is an evolutionary dead end.
As are diseases like progeria.
Gay people do have children. Many of them even get married to members of the opposite sex and have children, an outcome that is even more likely in an environment that says that gay is bad.
Bisexual people have children, too.
And, there’s this thing called recessive genes. If homosexuality is inherently genetic, it does not follow that the gay genes would never be passed along to the next generation.
Do you really want to know how homosexuality fits in with evolution, or are you just asking?
Because there are some novel kin-selection theories out there that do offer a possible explanation for the evolutionary roots of homosexuality.
Basically, the idea revolves around the part of evolutionary theory that says the thrust of evolution is to get your genes on to the next generation.
Considering that you share 50% of your genetic material with any of your siblings, there are evolutionary advantagesfor you in taking actions which help to aid in your siblings’ reproduction.
A child with two parents *and* a gay uncle that has no offspring of his own to care for stands a better chance of surviving to sexual maturity in a culture that has to engage in lots of physical labor to provide food (like most of the early human cultures were).
So, a family that produces a small number of gays and lesbians might have an overall greater fitness than one that does not (it’s important to remember that in evolution, “fit” has only to do with the number of offspring that live to the next generation – nothing else).
It’s a controversial claim – kin selection is not a universally accepted idea – but it’s certainly an intriguing idea worth exploring.
Hmmm….
[makes mental note about someone]
{[…and, no, not Dan Someone]}
Interesting theroy, Jillian, but someone willing to entertain such far-fetched theories should also be willing to have an open mind on the idea of Intelligent Design.
Actually, with Intelligent Design, gays have a better chance of furthering the species, because, once they’ve opened their hearts and mind to the Intelligent Designer, at least a percentage may begin to experiment with pre-fall Adam-and-Eve-esque sexual behavior.
“…at least a percentage may begin to experiment with pre-fall Adam-and-Eve-esque sexual behavior.”
That’s right, and some may even begin to like it.
I’m really going to miss Senator Chambers when he’s term-limited in ’08. He spoke to my seminar last fall got all my fellow white people riled up pretty good. He calls himself a Cobra and bragged about how he can control the entire legislature because all the old white men are afraid of him.
Speaking of old, white men, I think Ted Kennedy is probably among the oldest and the whitest.