Apr
9

Religion (Is) For Dummies




Posted at 21:27 by Travis G.

Michael Medved hops, skips and jumps to a conclusion:

Now that we’ve broken barriers with history’s first viable female and African-American candidates, opponents of organized religion hope for a new campaign in which a brave politician makes a credible run for the highest office even while proclaiming his non-belief.

Aiyee! What was the high-pitched noise that just pierced my eardrum, yet remained on the periphery of frequencies I can consciously perceive? Whatever it was, I’ve suddenly developed a sneaking suspicion of dark-skinned presidential candidates who don’t believe in God and wear skirts.

Just as the Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England, the President functions as head of the “Church of America” – that informal, tolerant but profoundly important civic religion that dominates all our national holidays and historic milestones.

Uh, please explain?

For instance, try to imagine an atheist president issuing the annual Thanksgiving proclamation. To whom would he extend thanks in the name of his grateful nation –-the Indians in Massachusetts?

Ha ha, good point. Like, what did they ever do to deserve thanks?

Then there’s the significant matter of the Pledge of Allegiance. Would President Atheist pronounce the controversial words “under God”? If he did, he’d stand accused (rightly) of rank hypocrisy.

Indeed, it’s quite plausible that President Atheist would spontaneously combust if he lolled the word “God” around his filthy mouth and let the syllable drop from his blister-scarred lips. This sort of thing happens to Hitchens all the time during television appearances.

And if he didn’t, he’d pointedly excuse himself from a daily ritual that overwhelming majorities of his fellow citizens consider meaningful.

Damned if he does, damned if he — Wait a second. Do presidents — including our current president, a fellow who’d certainly hold no objections to reciting every word to the Pledge of Allegiance, even those somewhat more recent addenda — actually take part in this ritual every day? Does anyone actually do this, besides elementary school children? Heck, do they even do this anymore, as a general rule?

The United States remains a profoundly, uniquely religious society: “a nation with the soul of a church” in Tocqueville’s durable phrase. A president need not embrace one of the nation’s leading faiths … A president with a mandate doesn’t have to be a regular church-goer, or even a convinced believer; but he can’t openly reject the religious sensibility of nearly all his predecessors and nearly all his fellow citizens.

Shorter Medved: All we ask, as people of faith, is that you go through the motions — for our sake, if not yours.

A leader who touts his non-belief will, even with the best of intentions, give the impression that he looks down on the people who elected him.

And isn’t that what religion is for, is improving self esteem? (“The LORD preserves the faithful, but the proud he pays back in full.” Psalms 23:13) Or not, perhaps.

medved-religion-copy.jpg
Uh-oh! Time for another jeremiad!

The remaining half of this column bogs down somewhat predictably in technical jargon about psychic warfare (“…the ongoing war on terror represents a furious battle of ideas and we face devastating handicaps if we attempt to beat something with nothing”) and speculative foreign policy (“President Atheist says he believes in nothing, so it’s easy to assume that he leads a war against belief itself”), before finally returning to more practical concerns:

[E]ven if an atheist president agrees that the well-being of the nation benefits from the spread of vigorous, non-fanatical religious faith, his own status as an openly proclaimed non-believer presents formidable handicaps for the encouragement of those values and institutions. For instance, Dr. Billy Graham has brought tens of millions to Christian commitment, but how could an unabashed atheist honor this achievement?

Hell, I dunno. Send the vice president?

197 Comments »

  1. Thomas Jefferson said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:33

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

  2. Gerald Curl said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:36

    Okay Medved I have a puzzler for you. What would your precious God do at the annual “Creating Rocks That God Can’t Lift” picnic?

  3. Michael Medved said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:36

    Who’s this Jefferson clown, anyway? Hey, Tommy McNoBelief, why can’t you just shut up and at least pretend to be mainstream?

  4. Roger Ailes said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:37

    And we all know how much Dr. Billy Graham loves your co-religionists, don’t we, Mikey?

  5. Some Guy said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:44

    Really? The US is a unique nation in the world cause it’s so religious? Wow. That’s some level of willful ignorance, there.

    Shorter Medved: “We can’t possible have an atheist president, cause it would be so WEIRD! Where would all the calculators go?”

  6. Sagra said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:45

    He totally forgot to mention that the typical atheist has an insatiable craving for human flesh. Especially plump, tender infants.

  7. Hoosier X said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:45

    If I were a religious person, I would seriously consider abandoning the whole enterprise just because of silly nonsense like this. Is it possible to be a man of faith without being an idiotic dipshit? If not, then you can have your religion, as I choose not to be an idiotic dipshit.

    Come to think of it, it’s the preponderance of people like Medved in religious circles, the high regard in which they are held by other religious dipshits, and the tepid if not quite non-existent response from sane religious people that turned me away from religion as a teenager.

    Good going, religious dipshits. If Satan exists, he must be very pleased with the work you are doing in turning honest, decent, sane people away from Jesus.

    By the way, I’m not an atheist. Religion is all about what man knows about what God thinks. And man clearly don’t know shit about what God thinks.

  8. pedestrian said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:47

    So, what happens if we elect a religious president and God tells him to fuck the country over by invading Iraq?

  9. Jim said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:48

    will President Atheist …

    Well, be fair. With a name like that, the guy didn’t have much choice.

  10. fruity said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:48

    Whoa. Dirty athiest that I am, I guess I better stop celebrating Thanksgiving! Who knew it was a high holy day in the Church of America?

  11. bc said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:51

    It is indeed idiots like Medved and his ilk that almost make me want to shout, “Thank god I’m an atheist!”

    (If only to piss them off until their little brains explode.)

    …bc…

  12. SethFourTen said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:52

    Mike makes as big leap in reasoning, what’s to say that President Atheist has to be a Tastycrat? What if he’s a Fingerlican?

  13. caliph garrett said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:52

    OT: Bilal Hussein to be released after 2 years in custody.

    It’s as if millions of wingnut voices suddenly cried out ZOMG BLARGH BLEAR GAH FRAG1!!!11!!1 and were suddenly silenced.

  14. DAS said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:53

    I wonder if Mikey would be against a Jewish President because, how could a Jewish President lead the White House Christmas tree lighting and Easter Egg hunt? And people like Medved would call people like me “self-hating Jews” because we do not suffiently support [the agenda of arms manufacturers who sell weapons to] Israel‘s role in precipitating the battle of Armegeddon in which all but 144K Jews are supposed to get killed?

  15. Pirelli's Purse said,

    April 9, 2008 at 21:56

    Atheists- The last group of people we all agree we can discriminate against. Thank god for them! We’re runnin’ outta folks to oppress. Seriously, what’s Medved’s problem? I only reject one more god than he does.

  16. commie atheist said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:01

    I wonder if Mikey would be against a Jewish President because, how could a Jewish President lead the White House Christmas tree lighting and Easter Egg hunt?

    Indeed, this only strengthens his point.

    Here’s an interesting thought experiment: Imagine that a certain series of unexpected events had resolved themselves somewhat differently, and that Vice President Lieberman was the defacto Democratic Presidential candidate right now. Besides the inherent horribleness implied in that idea, one wonders if the current “open debate on race” (and everything that implies) wouldn’t be an “open debate on the correct religion for the commander-in-chief.”

  17. pedestrian said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:02

    Just as the Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England, the President functions as head of the “Church of America” – that informal, tolerant but profoundly important civic religion that dominates all our national holidays and historic milestones.

    Are Philly Cheesesteaks like the national communion wafers?

  18. commie atheist said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:03

    Atheists- The last group of people we all agree we can discriminate against. Thank god for them! We’re runnin’ outta folks to oppress.

    (in creepy, Peter Lorre-esque voice) At your cervix, Mr. Danger.

  19. The Golden Turkey said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:04

    spread of vigorous, non-fanatical religious faith

    And here we have it, the answer to the question, What mighty weapon is it in this war contra Islamofascism that our golden-haired warriors level against the glowering, dark & turbaned drone-armies of the Caliphate? By god, it’s a Faith that both tastes great, but is at once less filling! It is sweet and mild. and round on all corners, one great metastasizing interfaith service…

    or not.

  20. billy pilgrim said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:08

    Yeah! And what happens when an atheist gives testimony? He can’t swear to tell the truth on God, so he must be lying!!

    Therefore, liberals. Hmpf.

  21. billy pilgrim said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:09

    Just as Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England…

    fixed. Freddie Mercury deserves the respeck.

  22. FuriousGeorge said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:10

    Just as the Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England, the President functions as head of the “Church of America”

    The best kind of comparisons are the ones where one of the things doesn’t fucking exist.

  23. Phil said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:10

    Dr. Billy Graham has brought tens of millions to Christian commitment, but how could an unabashed atheist honor this achievement?

    Uh, he means “why would,” not “how could,” right? And he means “any president at all,” not “an unabashed atheist,” right?

  24. KnaveRupe said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:11

    Obviously, it’s better to worship the Dark, Lovecraftian Gods that Dick Cheney serves than to worship no god at all!

    Ia Fthagn!

  25. billy pilgrim said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:15

    What about a Pastafarian? Or even worshiping Ceiling Cat?

    Is that better than atheism? I need to make an informed choice!!

  26. RodeoBob said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:15

    Ah Medved, just another contender in the Atheist-Strawman-Fighting-Championship…

    An atheist may be a good person, a good politician, a good family man (or woman), and even a good patriot…

    Nice of him to spot us godless folks that one. We might be good people… it’s not impossible for him to imagine that we might possibly be decent folk…

    For instance, try to imagine an atheist president issuing the annual Thanksgiving proclamation. To whom would he extend thanks in the name of his grateful nation –-the Indians in Massachusetts?

    Aristotle covered this a few millenia back. It is less essential to whom you express gratitude than displaying that you are capable of expressing gratitude at all. People are often ‘awe-struck’ by things like ancient redwood forests and the Grand Canyon, and are ‘thankful’ to have seen it. To whom are they offering thanks, and who are they displaying awe towards? It doesn’t matter. All that matters is that we think decent human beings should be capable of being awed and grateful.

    Skeptics may suggest that an atheist president would give the nation the long-overdue chance to purge itself of these inappropriate religious trappings in our governmental and public processes, but truly overwhelming majorities cherish such traditions.

    Skeptics may suggest that an abolitionist president would give the nation the long-overdue chance to pursge itself of these innaporpriate racist trappings… but truly overwhelmign majorities cherish the tradition of slavery.

    Remember kids: Democracy is three lions and a zebra deciding on lunch.

    But embrace of Jewish or Mormon practices doesn’t show contempt for the Protestant or Catholic faith of the majority, but affirmation of atheism does.

    I love the smell of straw in the morning. Dawkins is a famous atheist who has contempt for religion, therefore all atheists have contempt for religion. I’m starting to see how this whole “Obama must denounce all black men everywhere for what they say” business works.

    The most successful presidents sustain an almost mystical connection with the people they serve…

    Medved, you know the rules: puff, puff, pass. Don’t bogart it all, no matter how good the high is.

    A chief executive who publicly discards the core belief in God that drives the life and work of most of his countrymen can never achieve that sort of connection.

    …the core belief in god drives the work of most Americans? Really? (I really wanted to find an image from “They Live” with the dollar bill that says “This is your GOD”…)

    Winning the War on Islamo-Nazism.

    Seriously dude, stop hogging the good stuff. Whatever you’re on, it must be potent.

    Modern secularism rejects the notion that human beings feel a deep-seated, unquenchable craving for making connections with Godliness, in its various definitions and manifestations.

    Mmmm…. more straw! Secularism acknowledges the deep-steated craving quote openly. It just doesn’t stop there and accept it, instead pointing out such cravings are deeply irrational and ultimately harmful to rational decision making.

    Our enemies insist that God plays the central role in the current war and that they affirm and defend him, while we reject and ignore him.

    Um…yeah… on second thought, maybe I don’t want what you’re on after all. Seems to be affecting some basic memory skills

    The charge that our battle amounts to a “war against Islam” seems more persuasive when an openly identified non-believer leads our side—after all, President Atheist says he believes in nothing, so it’s easy to assume that he leads a war against belief itself.

    So if you combine a strawman with a nonsequitor, is that a nonman? Strawsequitor?
    One more time for the slow kids in the back of the class: athests do not “believe in nothing”. We simply don’t believe in anything without a sufficent level of evidence.

    secular enthusiasts may insist that some of our past leaders actually fit in to the long tradition of free-thinking and unorthodox religiosity – making it likely that we’ve already had a (mostly quiet) atheist president.

    They may insist that… but they don’t. And they haven’t. Ever. Seriously, find me a quote by a ‘secular enthusiast’ that says we’ve had a (mostly quiet) atheist president.

    Whatever their disagreements about miracles, the trinity, and the inerrancy of Scripture, the Founders certainly agreed about the usefulness and blessings associated with a faithful and Biblically-literate populace.

    Note that they didn’t agree on their accuracy, legitimacy, or believability. Just their usefullness.

    But even if an atheist president agrees that the well-being of the nation benefits from the spread of vigorous, non-fanatical religious faith…

    …which Strawpants McScarcrow the atheist never would, big meany…

    For instance, Dr. Billy Graham has brought tens of millions to Christian commitment, but how could an unabashed atheist honor this achievement?

    Perhaps a more interesting question would be why the President of the United States would “honor the achievement” of a private religious group that doesn’t even pay taxes solely for successfully growing its own numbers.

    If he avers (like Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris) that belief in God makes no more sense than belief in the Tooth Fairy, then how could he honor a great American for a lifetime of work in promulgating a silly and destructive myth?

    Nobody honors Mother Teresa for promulgating religion. We honor her for giving aid to the suffering and the poor. That she did what she did because of an irrational belief system doesn’t detract from the good work she carried out.
    Honor Mother Teresa for working with the destitute? Yes.
    Honor Billy Graham for, um, making more Christians? Not so much so.

    no one wants to silence or extirpate atheism but big majorities rightly resist the idea of giving that non-faith official status and a powerful platform by placing an openly-advertised atheist in the White House.

    No one wants to silence or extirpate African-Americans/Gays/Jews/Catholics/Muslims, but big majorities resist the idea of giving them status and a platform by placing one in the white house!

    Shorter Medved: Minorities are fine as long as they’re quiet and powerless!

  27. Doctorb Science said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:17

    It’s kind of hypocritical (or maybe just stupid) to pledge allegiance to a FLAG in the first place. I get that “the flag” could be sort of a metonym for, you know, our system of government or whatever, except that the pledge explicitly says “*and* to the Republic for which it stands,” meaning that you are, as far as I can tell, *literally* pledging your allegiance to our nation’s recognizable but busy logo. And that’s just crazy.

    Anyway, by the time Cletus is ready to vote for someone who doesn’t give credit to Jesus for every touchdown, nice day, and sandwich, we will have probably gone back to the original Pledge of Allegiance, which said “one nation, indivisible”. Although we probably won’t be doing Hitler salutes, because Hitler kind of ruined those for everyone.

  28. John O said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:21

    Shorter Michael Medved: God is the only thing between me and the horrible things I want to do with minor children.

  29. PeeJ said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:22

    To whom would he extend thanks in the name of his grateful nation –-the Indians in Massachusetts?

    Jeebus Fucking Christ on a crutch. Would someone do me a favor? Sweep up the pieces of my skull, scrape my brain from the walls and stuff it all back together, please? I’ve never actually had my head ‘splode before.

  30. MzNicky said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:24

    “A leader who touts his non-belief will … give the impression that he looks down on the people who elected him.”

    Yes. So totally unlike the impression given by leaders (or anyone else) who “tout their belief.”

  31. Satan's Dirty Underwear said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:24

    …no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI Section 3

    Why does Michael Medveded hate America?

  32. FuriousGeorge said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:26

    It’s kind of hypocritical (or maybe just stupid) to pledge allegiance to a FLAG in the first place. I get that “the flag” could be sort of a metonym for, you know, our system of government or whatever, except that the pledge explicitly says “*and* to the Republic for which it stands,” meaning that you are, as far as I can tell, *literally* pledging your allegiance to our nation’s recognizable but busy logo. And that’s just crazy.

    Um, battles are for flags. Unless Stratego lied to me. And Stratego didn’t.

  33. comsympinko said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:28

    What. An. Asshole.

    What truly stands in the way of an atheist becoming president is that so few of us are enough consumed by some insane messianic fire that stokes our sense of righteousness to the point where we think it necessary to tell everyone else to do as we say.

    To repeat the old maxim: Anyone who actually desires the office of the presidency of the United States is by nature unfit to govern.

    Even Jeebus.

  34. James Madison said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:30

    Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

  35. Kathleen said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:30

    I haven’t found the “Church of America” to be all that tolerant, actually.

  36. bago said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:31

    The most successful presidents sustain an almost mystical connection with the people they serve…

    and then get impeached for it….

  37. commie atheist said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:32

    Dr. Billy Graham has brought tens of millions to Christian commitment,

    Does he mean this Dr. Billy Graham?

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5554/is_200203/ai_n21800969

  38. steve said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:32

    Funny, he can’t even get his sources right: “Tocqueville’s durable phrase” was actually written a hundred years later by GK Chesterton. I’ll never understand why conservatives love to attribute quotes to de Tocqueville – even if they have to make them up.

    Medved’s argument seem to have one overriding pesky flaw — It’s Illegal, or at least used to be. For someone who keeps searching for signs of God in the founding documents he seems unable to grasp the subtle meaning of Article VI of the actual Constitution: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”

  39. commie atheist said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:33

    Ugh. Better link…

    http://www.rense.com/general20/billy.htm

  40. Doctorb Science said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:33

    As a Catholic, I’m pretty upset by all those Presidents (except JFK) waving all that “Sola Fide” Prod nonsense around, eating meat on Fridays and refusing to go in a darkened closet to tell a man in a dress about what they did with their willies. It’s a slap in the face to my religion that these hellbound Luther-lovers are mincing about, denying the authority of the Pope, and still get to be President. And the Calvin-cuddlers can go ahead and say that the saints aren’t worthy of the glory duly accorded them, and nobody bats an eye. Also something about communion wafers but nobody even pretends to understand how unsaturated fats are transubstantiated into trans fats without consuming any platinum (duh, it’s a Mystery, hello?) so we’ll just have to agree to fistfight.

  41. Legalize said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:36

    United States Constitution, Article VI, section 3:

    …”[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    This proves that the framers of the constitution favored Xtianity and hated evil Moooooslims.

  42. Scott said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:38

    Michael Medved is the second-dumbest major pundit in America. No one can out-stupid Jonah, but Medved does his best.

  43. V. I. Lenin said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:38

    “Oh my lack of god! Medved is on to us!!!!”

  44. commie atheist said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:39

    But embrace of Jewish or Mormon practices doesn’t show contempt for the Protestant or Catholic faith of the majority, but affirmation of atheism does.

    On the other hand, embrace of Islamic…ah, why even bother.

  45. Me said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:42

    opponents of organized religion hope for a new campaign in which a brave politician makes a credible run for the highest office even while proclaiming his non-belief.

    As for me, I’m just hoping to see the words “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” taken seriously for a fucking change.

  46. DAS said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:43

    But embrace of Jewish or Mormon practices doesn’t show contempt for the Protestant or Catholic faith of the majority, but affirmation of atheism does.

    I dunno, embrace of Mormon practices does kinda imply that non-Mormon Christians aren’t up to speed on God’s latest and greatest appearance, doesn’t it? And Christians throughout history have deemed embrace of Jewish practice to be contemptful to their idea that following the Law is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve salvation (when we Jews observe a mitzvah we specifically speak of sanctification via the commandments and pointedly not of sanctification by grace).

    And one could argue that embrace of a Protestant heresy shows contempt for the teachings of the Catholic Church and its proclaimation of its, well, Catholicism. Meanwhile Mike may like to ask some of his Protestant political “friends” what they really think of “the Whore of Babylon”.

    But this doesn’t matter to me. I’m a Jew. Embrace of certain parts of the Christian Bible (e.g. John 8:31-47) certainly shows contempt for me (am I a “son of the devil”?).

    So how is embracing atheism any more or less contemptuous than anything else?

    As far as the larger point is concerned, one can argue that the reason why Americans are so religious is that our “state religion” (and there certainly is one) is so doctrinally neutral that it can be practiced by people of most faiths (including a faith that there is no god), so religion has not been so divisive in our country that we feel a need to reject it to be socially unified. It is people who seek to make our secular faith a religious faith, no matter how bland and inoffensive (and hence pointless), who are being divisive and ultimately harming American religiosity here.

    If our shared faith precludes atheism, what else might it preclude? Remember, Mikey, we Jews, because we reject the idea that Jesus is divine, are considered by many to be atheists (“if you don’t believe in Jesus, you don’t believe in God”) … certainly, in terms of Classical Religion, we Jews are atheists.

  47. Rishy said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:44

    a new campaign in which a brave politician makes a credible run for the highest office even while proclaiming his non-belief.

    New….NEW??? I don’t think so:

    “The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.” — Abraham Lincoln

  48. tufdaawg said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:45

    i work at a high school here in California and we recite the pledge every morning. god bless America. :)

  49. D.N. Nation said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:47

    On the other hand, embrace of Islamic…ah, why even bother.

    Actually, Thomas Jefferson bothered:

    Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

    Medved is anti-American. Period.

  50. commie atheist said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:47

    They may insist that… but they don’t. And they haven’t. Ever. Seriously, find me a quote by a ’secular enthusiast’ that says we’ve had a (mostly quiet) atheist president.

    Well…

    http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm

    http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8581.htm

    http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/04/08/was-abraham-lincoln-a-christian/

    Granted, nothing definitive, but the possibility does exist.

  51. DAS said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:47

    you are, as far as I can tell, *literally* pledging your allegiance to our nation’s recognizable but busy logo. And that’s just crazy.

    The Jehova’s Witnesses make a good case that it’s idolatry as well.

  52. billy pilgrim said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:49

    For instance, Dr. Billy Graham has brought tens of millions to Christian commitment, but how could an unabashed atheist honor this achievement?

    By taxing the Christians $100 per head?

  53. PeeJ said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:49

    The Church of America just doesn’t put on a good show.

    Not like them Catlix anyway, with their High Masses – the robes! the hats! the ritual! Totally over the top, almost as good as opera. Do they stiill do those btw? Fabulous stuff.

    Or, say a black church. The singing alone is almost always worth it but throw in some great oration (and I gotta tell ya, I watched the Big Black Blowout or whatever it was on CSPAN a week or so ago and there was that guy Michael someone or other from Georgetown(?) and MAN! What a speaker! – made Jesse Jackson sound like a third rate divinity school dropout) and THAT’s entertainment.

    If the Church of America would just off their pasty white asses and develop some decent programming we atheists wouldn’t be so dismissive.

  54. commie atheist said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:50

    So how is embracing atheism any more or less contemptuous than anything else?

    Medved is one those “any religion is preferable to no religion” morons who refuse to see that all religions are pretty much atheistic, when it comes to a belief in any god but their own.

  55. DAS said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:51

    Abe Lincoln weren’t no atheist. He was a Muslim.

  56. Southern Beale said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:53

    Wow, and all this in time for Islamofascism Awareness Week Part Duh. See, there IS a God! I couldn’t be this lucky!

  57. Southern Beale said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:53

    For instance, Dr. Billy Graham has brought tens of millions to Christian commitment, but how could an unabashed atheist honor this achievement?

    By pointing out that Billy Graham is a Democrat?

  58. Smut Clyde said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:55

    I’ll never understand why conservatives love to attribute quotes to de Tocqueville – even if they have to make them up.

    Because when you make up quotes and attribute them to someone more recent, there is more chance that some meddling kids in the audience will be familiar with the style of the supposed source and think “That’s not right”.

    “When using famous dead authors as a sock-puppet, make sure they’re at least two centuries in the ground, and that they wrote in another language” — Wolfram von Eschenbach.

  59. DAS said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:55

    Totally over the top, almost as good as opera. – PeeJ

    Some of my non-Jewish friends attended Shabbos services at my wife’s shul (which has a full 3 hour service led by a Cantor with a perfect “Dramatic Tenor” voice). They said the services were “like Wagner, but without the anti-Semitism”.

  60. pedestrian said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:02

    “When using famous dead authors as a sock-puppet, make sure they’re at least two centuries in the ground, and that they wrote in another language” — Wolfram von Eschenbach.

    Dude, you have a terrible puppet face.

  61. PeeJ said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:02

    “like Wagner, but without the anti-Semitism”

    Cleanup at PeeJ’s desk. I need a cleanup at PeeJ’s desk….

    It’s been years since I last passed a cup of coffee through my nose.

  62. Nim, ham hock of liberty said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:02

    Shorter Medved:

    Hey, you guys realize that atheists don’t believe in God….? What’s up with that???

    …………………………….

    Medved logic:

    - Because this is an overwhelmingly Xtian nation, many people would consider it odd if the President couldn’t or wouldn’t play along with them.
    - Therefore, atheists. Hrmf.

  63. MzNicky said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:05

    I’ll never understand why conservatives love to attribute quotes to de Tocqueville – even if they have to make them up.

    “““
    Because when you make up quotes and attribute them to someone more recent, there is more chance that some meddling kids in the audience will be familiar with the style of the supposed source and think “That’s not right”.

    Plus conservatives are lazy ignoramuses. They don’t realize other people read books and remember stuff.

  64. Hysterical Woman said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:09

    Who was Michael Medved’s civics teacher and why haven’t they publicly repented yet?

  65. Thomas Jefferson said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:10

    Sigh…

  66. George Washington said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:11

    Sigh…

  67. James Madison said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:11

    Sigh…

  68. Dexceus said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:11

    This whole thread just makes me want share some musical goodness. God thinks indeed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFt8WQkEvb8&feature=related

  69. Jake H. said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:12

    Shorter Medved: An atheist president would be unable to take part in meaningless pro forma rituals that no one notices or cares about anymore.

  70. Jim said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:13

    Doctorb Science said,

    April 9, 2008 at 22:33

    As a Catholic, I’m pretty upset by all those Presidents (except JFK) waving all that “Sola Fide” Prod nonsense around, … refusing to go in a darkened closet to tell a man in a dress about what they did with their willies.

    If elected, I’m willing to oblige on that bit. You name the guy, I’ll bring the dress.

  71. Nittany said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:14

    “[E]ven if an atheist president agrees that the well-being of the nation benefits from the spread of vigorous, non-fanatical religious faith, his own status as an openly proclaimed non-believer presents formidable handicaps for the encouragement of those values and institutions. For instance, Dr. Billy Graham has brought tens of millions to Christian commitment, but how could an unabashed atheist honor this achievement?”

    SHOULD a president honor such an achievement? Government was supposed to stay out of religion; even “honor[ing] such an achievement” is close to promoting one religion over another. How Medved would howl if a future president would honor a pagan achievement, a Hindu achievement or a Buddist achievement! “But…but…but, it’s the WRONG religion!”

  72. Tom Smykowski, Useless Initech employee said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:15

    Hey, the Jump to Conclusions thing was my idea!

  73. comsympinko said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:17

    “I’ll never understand why conservatives love to attribute quotes to de Tocqueville – even if they have to make them up.”

    It’s also a chance for them to subtly stick it to the French, implying that a Frenchman may once have said something intelligent but he’s two hundred years old and dead.

    De Tocqueville also said: “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.”

    And: “In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.”

    And: “No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.”

    And: “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.”

    And: “What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class.”

    Dude might have been onto something…

  74. Chlamydia Champaigne said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:19

    Michael Medved is the second-dumbest major pundit in America. No one can out-stupid Jonah, but Medved does his best.

    I don’t know. There are contenders for dumber than Medved. But you’re right about DoughBob.

    Speaking of DoughBob, I remember hearing around the blogs that Comedy Central would put the entire 18 minute Daily Show interview of Dr. Loadpants online, but only after the writers’ strike ended. But it doesn’t look like the did. It’s got to be hilarious.

  75. ahem said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:19

    Last time I checked, lots of presidents didn’t say ‘so help me God’ when inaugurated. A few affirmed, rather than swore the oath of office: an innovation put into the Constitution, along with the prohibition on religious tests, to accommodate those opposed to swearing oaths, including Quakers and other denominations.

    When Medved invokes the position of the British monarch, he’s implicitly embracing the situation as it stood in Britain for a very long time, in which public office and the right to attend a university was reserved to those who took Anglican communion and swore on the Thirty-Nine Articles. He may not think it, but that’s the true context.

    What a silly man.

  76. PeeJ said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:23

    Hey Nittany! What’s with all the whacko athletes? Hasn’t been much else in the Seedy Tea or the Daily Collusion lately.

    We ARE …. (even if sometimes we prefer to keep it to ourselves)

  77. Satan's Dirty Underwear said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:24

    Get back to your TPS reports, Smykowski.

  78. Nittany said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:32

    To ahem:

    I think only one U.S. president “affirmed” and not “swore” at his inauguration, Teddy Roosevelt. It shows just how scary the whole religious orthodoxy is in America when only one of the perceived Leaders of the Free World felt confident enough to buck the trend.

    To PeeJ:

    Penn State is beginning to look like a rouge’s gallery but I’m sure the situation won’t last. Okay, I hope the situation won’t last. If only the football team would save the aggression for the gridiron!

  79. Nittany said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:33

    …[/channel old timey sportswriter]

  80. les said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:33

    “that informal, tolerant but profoundly important civic religion”

    And what does this have to do with god in any event? An atheist can throw out first pitches, munch overcooked turkey and smile at stupid ties-for-xmas just as well as anyone.

  81. Chlamydia Champaigne said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:42

    Get back to your TPS reports, Smykowski.

    “I mean just the thought of having to go to the unemployment office and stand in line behind those scumbags!!

  82. OneMan said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:45

    am I a “son of the devil”?

    …if you have to ask….

  83. billy pilgrim said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:47

    Well, let’s face it: an atheist is just far less likely to use pleas to the HolyFather and Blessings from God to corral and lead the Amurrican Herd….

    And if we couldn’t startle and panic the herd, Gentlemen, how do we protect our phoney baloney jobs? Harrumph! Harrumph!!

  84. Smut Clyde said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:50

    every word to the Pledge of Allegiance, even those somewhat more recent addenda
    So the US only became “one nation under God” in 1954?! I had no idea that the Church of American was so recent.
    What interests me is Medved’s assumption that the Church of America must be obedient to some single centralised leadership in order to be a proper religion; and the way he identifies this leadership with the presidency (rather than with the SCOTUS, say). I get the feeling that he would be totally down with atheism if it were more organised, with a proper authority structure, an Atheist Pope he could recognise.

    But it’s hard to be sure, with someone whose mental processes allow him to say that as long as we ignore the opposite meanings of ‘formal’ and ‘informal’, then the formal definition of the Queen’s role in the C.of E. is just the same as the president’s metaphorical relationship to a non-existent concept that he’s just dreamed up.

  85. Rishy said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:53

    The Church of America just doesn’t put on a good show.

    Not like them Catlix anyway, with their High Masses – the robes! the hats! the ritual! Totally over the top, almost as good as opera. Do they stiill do those btw? Fabulous stuff.

    PeeJ,
    I officially invite you to our next High Holy Day celebration. Umm…no robes, we go nekkid, but there is liberal use of body paint and glitter powder as well as drumming, dancing, bonfire leaping, imbibing of much mead and other sorts of all natural mood enhancers. Not as highbrow as opera but I have an inkling you’d approve.

    (It does occur to me however that ya aint gonna see any of my fellow practitioners in the Oval Office anytime soon–can you imagine the above scene in the Rose Garden???)

  86. DAS said,

    April 9, 2008 at 23:54

    he’s implicitly embracing the situation as it stood in Britain for a very long time, in which public office and the right to attend a university was reserved to those who took Anglican communion and swore on the Thirty-Nine Articles. He may not think it, but that’s the true context. – ahem

    No British person, not even dyed in the wool Anglicans, can attend a university. They can only attend university. And when they fall ill, they stay in hospital. Etc.

    Seriously, though, it is always amusing to see a bunch of supposedly Baptist fundies and supposedly Jewish neo-cons regurgitating the talking points of the good, ol’ fashioned British aristocratic, Anglican establishment, whilst the Anglicans nowadays often sound like the Baptists of yore in these matters.

  87. Jim said,

    April 10, 2008 at 0:00

    So the US only became “one nation under God” in 1954?! I had no idea that the Church of American was so recent.

    Sure, it happened right before Ike had Mamie beheaded so he could sleep with Elizabeth Taylor.

  88. Jay B. said,

    April 10, 2008 at 0:05

    Then there’s the significant matter of the Pledge of Allegiance. Would President Atheist pronounce the controversial words “under God”? If he did, he’d stand accused (rightly) of rank hypocrisy.

    not if he or she used air quotes where medved used quote marks. we atheists would totally get it.

    I do love the “significant matter” of the Pledge of Allegiance though. There, he shows he has the enthusiasms of a particularly joyless 4th grader with a weebelo badge and fireman fetish.

  89. Doodle Bean said,

    April 10, 2008 at 0:06

    Are Philly Cheesesteaks like the national communion wafers?

    Only if they come from Geno’s!

  90. tigrismus said,

    April 10, 2008 at 0:06

    Thanks to all those who pointed out the whole pesky “no religious test” bit. Poor Medved already has the scantron forms and little pencils prepped for the candidates to begin their bubbling. HAD HE BUT KNOWN!

  91. Satan's Dirty Underwear said,

    April 10, 2008 at 0:08

    Rishy,

    I was thinking I had been to one (or more) of those but I don’t remember any glitter powder. Perhaps I attended a service of apostates?

    Anyway, not only *can* I imagine it in the Rose Garden, it’s now one of my life objectives.

  92. Duros Hussein 62 said,

    April 10, 2008 at 0:11

    spread of vigorous, non-fanatical religious faith

    EEEHHHH! Oxymoron.

    Oh and Michael?

    Because shut up, that’s why.

  93. PeeJ said,

    April 10, 2008 at 0:13

    Oops. Boy was that a bad time to forget the moniker change.

  94. Jennifer said,

    April 10, 2008 at 0:16

    Reading Medved makes you dumber.

    Thanks a lot, SN.

  95. Arky "I Just Get These Headaches" The Blasphemer said,

    April 10, 2008 at 0:26

    A leader who touts his non-belief will, even with the best of intentions, give the impression that he looks down on the people who elected him.

    Yep. You never see a leader who touts his belief lie his country into a war and an economic disaster. You’ll never see an outwardly devout leader eating cake while a city turns into a little slice of Hell. You’ll never see [fill in your favorite Bushterfuck here], becaue people who say they believe in God would never lie about such a thing.

    Jesus Christ. These people must be bashing their heads with ball peen hammers. There simply is no other explanation for the intense levels of stoopid.

  96. Smut Clyde said,

    April 10, 2008 at 0:41

    Like Medved, Nancy Morgan in the previous thread is also fond of the construction “Just as [relationship between A and B], so [completely different relationship between C and D]“. And like him, her imaginary enemies can be recognised by the way they like to tout their unbelief or their moral vitas.
    Is there just a single dog-eared, coffee-stained hand-written copy of this hymn-book, which they furtively pass back and forth? Or is it circulated as a small photocopied samizdat edition?

  97. PeeJ said,

    April 10, 2008 at 0:50

    There’s more than one copy. And it has so much more than that.

    The title is The Protocols of the Elders of San Francisco and there is no definitive edition. Like snowflakes, no one has ever seen two exactly alike. Where they come from is unknown but Eco has alluded to an organization called Genrery.

  98. t4toby said,

    April 10, 2008 at 0:51

    I don’t want to know about anything they furtively pass back and forth.

    At all.

  99. OB-GYN Kenobi said,

    April 10, 2008 at 0:57

    What RodeoBob said.

  100. billy pilgrim said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:16

    Did we chase all the trolls away?

    Not that I miss them or anything. It just seems like a long time since anybody said anything about pie.

  101. Billy Goat's Gruff said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:17

    I like pie!

  102. Jennifer said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:18

    “Pi R square”

    No, Jethro, pies are round. Cornbread are square.

  103. MzNicky said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:21

    I just love this thread so much I want to marry it.

  104. Smut Clyde said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:22

    Like snowflakes, no one has ever seen two exactly alike

    All is clear now. Medved’s copy of The Protocols does not include the addendum about Liberal Fascism, allowing him to write
    The most successful presidents sustain an almost mystical connection with the people they serve…

  105. Smut Clyde said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:23

    a long time since anybody said anything about pie.
    I like pancake. Will that do? But it has to have two sides. Otherwise it is a fierce pancake indeed.

  106. MzNicky said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:29

    Jim: Thank you for the robo-link in the bacon-and-Playdough® thread, which allowed me to give Ass o Spuds multiple “1″ rankings at the idiotic Time mag blogometer thing today at work whilst I furtively pretended to be pulling up stat sheets and shit.

    Also re: the American Church “beheading Mamie Eisenhower” comment: Haw haw! ‘cept I’d have to correct the female sterotypes you present in order to draw a proper historical analogy. Four hundred years later, sure, but Mamie’d be sent away to a convent for failure to birth a son (which would, handily, eliminate David, future groom to Nixon-spawn Julie), and instead it’d be gorgeous Liz who got the axe—hilariously!, for the same grave sin against the patriarchy as her predecessor. The more things change, and so forth.

  107. comsympinko said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:29

    Pie good.

    Pancake too.

    Medved bad.

  108. MzNicky said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:31

    Also, commie-atheist, your comment way upthread in the Peter Lorre accent (“at your cervix”) made me laugh real loud. No way to explain to coworkers what was funny. Thanks dude(ette?)! I loved it.

  109. Jennifer said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:36

    Would someone be so kind as to re-post Jim’s robolink, so’s I don’t have to go comb through comments on several threads? I’ve always wanted to know more about bacon and Play-Doh.

    I’ll repay the favor in advance with this, which is off-topic but very enjoyable nonetheless.

  110. Bill Lumbergh said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:38

    Tom Smykowski–

    You apparently didn’t put one of the new coversheets on your TPS reports.

    See, we’re putting the coversheets on all TPS reports now before they go out.

    Did you SEE the memo on this?

    If you could just go ahead and remember to do that from now on, that would be grrreeeaaattt.

    And I’ll go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo.

    Mmmmmkay?

  111. comsympinko said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:40

    We’ve got Ace down to 6!

    Come on, team! You’ve got to want it!

  112. Lancelot Link said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:43

    Then there’s the significant matter of the Pledge of Allegiance. Would President Atheist pronounce the controversial words “under God”?

    A grand total of 10 presidents have pronounced those words as part of the pledge of allegiance.

    Michael Medved knows nothing about anything (including bad movies – that’s his brother).

  113. Pere Ubu said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:43

    Then there’s the significant matter of the Pledge of Allegiance. Would President Atheist pronounce the controversial words “under God”? If he did, he’d stand accused (rightly) of rank hypocrisy.

    Sheesh, he might have to go through all the trouble of writing a sining statement sayhing he didn’t have to.

    This sort of thing happens to Hitchens all the time during television appearances.

    I beg to differ.

    If that HAD happened, not only would there be a copy of it on YouTube, but I would have favortited it, as well as downloaded it to my hard drive.

  114. Tom Smykowski, Useless Initech employee said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:45

    Well-well look. I already told you: I deal with the goddamn customers so the engineers don’t have to! I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can’t you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

  115. comsympinko said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:45

    Jennifer–

    Great link.

    Best line: in a given system the simplest answer is usually the correct one–asshole!

  116. Pere Ubu said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:46

    (in creepy, Peter Lorre-esque voice) At your cervix, Mr. Danger.

    You’d better pull your cues out of the cellophane before they scorch.

  117. The Bobs said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:47

    And there’s Tom Smykowski.

    He’s useless. Gone.

  118. Smut Clyde said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:49

    he might have to go through all the trouble of writing a sinning statement
    FYE.

  119. PeeJ said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:54

    Jennifer: Second time today I’ve run across that! Listened to the thing this time as well. Me likey.

  120. PeeJ said,

    April 10, 2008 at 1:55

    …the whole thing…

  121. mikey said,

    April 10, 2008 at 2:14

    I like pancake. Will that do? But it has to have two sides. Otherwise it is a fierce pancake indeed.

    A sort of a “Klein Pancake” if you will, topologically unique and next to impossible to execute on a griddle, but easily described mathematically…

    mikey

  122. slippy hussein toad said,

    April 10, 2008 at 2:16

    Well, if nothing else this has reaffirmed my belief that I am much, much smarter than Michael Medved, and therefore need not bother myself with anything that he says.

  123. Lumbergh said,

    April 10, 2008 at 2:20

    And there’s Tom Smykowski.

    He’s useless. Gone.

    Greaat.

  124. Tom Smykowski, Useless Initech employee said,

    April 10, 2008 at 2:34

    Just remember, if you hang in there long enough, good things can happen in this world. I mean, look at me.

  125. Michael Bolton said,

    April 10, 2008 at 2:38

    Tom Smykowski–

    That’s the worst idea I’ve ever heard in my life.

  126. Samir Naenanajan said,

    April 10, 2008 at 2:39

    Tom Smykowski–

    Yes, yes it’s horrible, this idea.

  127. mikey said,

    April 10, 2008 at 2:46

    I’m pretty sure there’s a theme here I’m missing.

    Umm, who’s tom?

    Who’s Samir?

    And can somebody give me the clif notes version of the joke?

    Umm, if it is a joke?

    If not? I’m just an idiot, carry on…

    mikey

  128. Simba B said,

    April 10, 2008 at 2:51

    It’s a movie called Office Space, mikey.

  129. LA Confidential Pantload said,

    April 10, 2008 at 2:52

    So if Medved thinks we need a man of faith in the top job, surely he’d endorse a candidate for the priesthood who’s a former governor….

    McGreevey in ’08!

  130. mikey said,

    April 10, 2008 at 2:59

    It’s a movie called Office Space, mikey.

    Dammit. I really suck.

    Ok, I’ll slink off to wiki and learn about it.

    In my defense, while I may not live in THE world, that place where you all live in community, but I live in an odd little place called mikey world…

    mikey

  131. Matt McMahon said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:02

    In all my letters, I try harder than anything else to make myself clear. I try to state things as simply and unambiguously as I can because I find that that’s the best way to convince my readers that Hussein Obama is maladroit and borderline petty. Note that some of the facts I plan to use in this letter were provided to me by a highly educated person who managed to escape Hussein’s prissy, inimical indoctrination and is consequently believable. To most people, the idea that his manipulative editorials are a sin against nature is so endemic, so long ingrained, that when others conclude that he is the great master of deception, this merely seems to be affirming an obvious truth. Already, some stentorian bureaucrats have begun to win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats, and with terrifying and tragic results. What put-downs will follow from their camp is anyone’s guess.

    How can Hussein live with himself, knowing that he is not on my Christmas-card list? Well, while you’re deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: How will his yes-men react when they discover that he wants to ransack people’s homes? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but if you were to try to tell his stooges that what we need from him is fewer monologues and more dialogue, they’d close their eyes and put their hands over their ears. They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They don’t want to hear that you might say, “Hussein formulates his conjectures in a precarious latticework between the illiberal and the venal.” Fine, I agree. But mankind needs to do more to oppose our human vices wherever they may be found — arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that Hussein’s serfs were recently seen forcing me to react violently. That’s not a one-time accident or oversight. That’s Hussein’s policy.

    At no time in the past did reprehensible calumniators of one sort or another shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. If it is not yet clear that one of Hussein’s unidimensional arguments is that he is the arbiter of all things, then consider that I am tired of hearing or reading that he can change his uncompanionable ways. You know that that is simply not true. I want to make this clear so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony — and you know who I’m referring to — can process my point.

    Whether or not Hussein should tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue ought to be a simple question, far beyond the realm of debate. However, his list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I’ll summarize by stating that if we don’t justify condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of Hussein and his callous ploys right now, then Hussein’s politics will soon start to metastasize until they block streets and traffic to the extent that ambulances can’t get through. There are those who are informed and educated about the evils of frotteurism, and there are those who are not. Hussein is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that’s why all of his sophistries contain incoherent elements. And let me tell you, he and his trained seals are, by nature, ungrateful backstabbers. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but whenever anyone states the obvious — that Hussein harbors a sense of entitlement and an expectation of success beyond reason — discussion naturally progresses towards the question, “How repressive can Hussein be?” Well, once you begin to see the light, you’ll realize that hotheaded grifters serve as the priests in Hussein’s cult of fickle moral relativism. These “priests” spend their days basking in Hussein’s reflected glory, pausing only when Hussein instructs them to teach the next generation how to hate — and whom to hate. What could be more scabrous? While I don’t know the answer to that particular question, I do know that it’s really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to work together towards a shared vision. It’s my sense of responsibility to you, the reader.

    What Hussein is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly prudish activity. As I understand it, if we don’t issue a call to conscience and reason then Hussein will snooker people of every stripe into believing that he can succeed without trying. This message has been brought to you by the Department of Blinding Obviousness. What might not be so obvious, however, is that many people who follow Hussein’s criticisms have come to the erroneous conclusion that masochism and narcissism are identical concepts. The stark truth of the matter is that his bedfellows say, “It is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to break up society’s solidarity and cohesiveness.” Yes, I’m afraid they really do talk like that. It’s the only way for them to conceal that it’s Hussein’s deep-seated belief that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. Sure, he might be able to justify conclusions like that — using biased or one-sided information, of course — but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that Hussein constantly insists that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. But he contradicts himself when he says that his mistakes are always someone else’s fault. In closing, we must do everything in our power to extirpate scapegoatism root, trunk, and branch. The fight must go on.

  132. Matt McMahon said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:03

    Just TRY to refute that, Lib-bots. The fact is, you can’t.

  133. Teh Anti-Medved said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:03

    Not just a movie, but a sublime send-up of life in the corporate world. Featuring a nubile Jennifer Aniston. Grrr…

  134. Rightwingsnarkle said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:04

    “”President Atheist says he believes in nothing, so it’s easy to assume that he leads a war against belief itself”

    So, we’re gonna elect someone from the cast of Seinfeld as our next president? Why wasn’t I told this before?

  135. Rightwingsnarkle said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:06

    “Obama is maladroit and borderline petty.”

    And his prose is too prolix. Don’t forget the prose. Too. Freaking. Prolix.

  136. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:09

    I vote for shorter Matt McTroll.

    Seriously, d00d, you could make “your” alleged point better with one paragraph of complaint letter generator.

    Your consistent failure to fully utilize the complaint letter generator to its maximum capacity is very disappointing.

    /Vader

  137. Bitter Scribe said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:10

    I’d like to see a follow-up by Medved:

    [E]ven if a Jewish president agrees that the well-being of the nation benefits from the spread of vigorous, non-fanatical religious faith in Jesus Christ, his own status as an openly proclaimed non-believer in Christ presents formidable handicaps for the encouragement of those values and institutions. For instance, Dr. Billy Graham has brought tens of millions to Christian commitment, but how could an unabashed Jew honor this achievement?

  138. Smut Clyde said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:10

    A leader who touts his non-belief will, even with the best of intentions, give the impression that he looks down on the people who elected him.
    To avoid that undesirable situation, you could always select a leader who’s a half-witted and morally-crippled incompetent with a track-record of epic failure… though even then there’s the possibility that he will have an unshakable sense of entitlement, and will still treat the rest of the world as his inferiors.

  139. mikey said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:12

    Typical of the American cultural unwillingness to even recognize that there MIGHT be a problem. It’s the greatest country in the history of the world. Everything’s perfect. Nothing could possible be wrong with the greatest country in the history of the world.

    Any conversation about anything that might be wrong is taboo. Oh sure, we can report polling data that 81% of the population think the US is headed in the wrong direction, but actually ADDRESSING those concerns is completely against the rules. I guess you could say that we just don’t want to talk about the cliff, we just want to drive over it in peace.

    Personally, I’d much rather have a president who didn’t believe in fairy tales. A president who was willing to look at every variable and every parameter and make decisions that, while perhaps not the most enriching in the short term, made the entire system more sustainable over the long term.

    Because frankly? This collective clapping of hands over ears and loudly singing La-La-LAAAH isn’t getting it done…

    mikey

  140. Jim said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:15

    How can Hussein live with himself, knowing that he is not on my Christmas-card list?
    Awesome

    And Jennifer – this is the link, a (hopefully) shorter way to shrink Ace’s endowment.

  141. Jennifer said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:15

    Shit, mikey, I think you just inspired me to come up with the ultimate campaign sticker for this election, the one that pretty well sums it all up in just a few short words:

    Adults for Obama ’08

  142. Rightwingsnarkle said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:20

    “shrink Ace’s endowment.”

    Cold water also works.

    I think we can move Ace into negative-number territory.

  143. Ted said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:23

    In all my letters, I try harder than anything else to make myself clear.

    I’ll ask again. Could you please stop farting around here?

  144. billy pilgrim said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:32

    Otherwise it is a fierce pancake indeed.

    Excellent. A Stump reference. Now I know there’s THREE of us in North America.

  145. Smut Clyde said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:37

    Hey, a couple of threads ago I linked to “Charlton Heston put his Vest on”.
    To tell the truth, “The Third Policeman” is my preferred source of pancake-related references.

  146. Rightwingsnarkle said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:43

    Quick blog whoring – today’s post is for all of you opera lovers out there.

    Thanks for the indulgence.

  147. billy pilgrim said,

    April 10, 2008 at 3:59

    Oh, man.

    I can’t BELIEVE I didn’t make the Charlton Heston connection in the last couple of days, what with all the ‘cold, dead hands’ jokes….

    Scuse me. gotta go write a post.

  148. comsympinko said,

    April 10, 2008 at 4:07

    Ladies and gentlemen, I present Matt McMahon, delivering the pie.

    No…more…pie…

  149. Fozzetti said,

    April 10, 2008 at 4:26

    My GOD, what a complete Fool!

  150. MzNicky said,

    April 10, 2008 at 4:42

    Mr. Ed McMahon– Fourth paragraph: Two unclear antecedents, one misused modifier, one misspelled word. Not to mention egregious pomposity and excessive pretensiosity. Anyway, I thought you were dead. You played Moses, right?

  151. Hoosier X said,

    April 10, 2008 at 4:45

    mikey,

    If it’s any consolation, I have never seen Office Space either.

    I keep meaning to see it. I just never got around to it.

    When I say I haven’t seen it, people look at me the way I look at people who haven’t seen Animal House.

    Excuse me while I put Office Space on the ol’ Netflix queue.

    (By the way, I saw Almodovar’s Volver today with Penelope Cruz, and it’s excellent. I was blown away.)

  152. mikey said,

    April 10, 2008 at 4:51

    Um. [Winces and runs away]

    I never saw animal house.

    Hey, c’mon, I’m DEFECTIVE.

    I have a VERY short attention span.

    Movies are HARD….

    mikey

  153. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    April 10, 2008 at 5:07

    Never saw animal house?

    Damn, Mikey. And here I thought I was Mr. Antisocial.

    I bow down before your high ness.

  154. Hoosier X said,

    April 10, 2008 at 5:07

    mikey,

    My sister-in-law has a malady towards movies that might be similar to your own.

    She likes classic movies from the 30s and 40s because they tend to be shorter. So she loves stuff like Frankenstein and Dracula, and also crime classis, noir classics, stuff like that. The orignal D.O.A. she really loves. And Christmas in Connecticut.

    My brother and I make fun of her, and she takes it very well. He loves the movies, and she goes with him a lot, and falls asleep. (She’s kind of an over-achiever and probably needs the sleep.) If she doesn’t fall asleep, it’s a bad sign that the movie irritated her so much that she couldn’t relax enought to fall asleep. The only movie I recall her staying awake all the way through was Artificial Intelligence, and she hated it!!! She wouldn’t stop bagging on it for weeks. (Much like my mother going off on Dakota Fanning.)

    I like shorter movies too. When a movie gets into the over 80 minutes area, it has to be really good and have a good reason to be that long. I was a little leery of Volver because it’s right at 2 hours, but I thought even if it isn’t that good, I can look at Penelope Cruz. And it ended up being a film that had me mesmerized.

    If they’re in the 70 to 80 minute range, they can be dumb. The dumber the better. I love stupid movies.

  155. Lawnguylander said,

    April 10, 2008 at 5:10

    I don’t know anything about fierce pancakes but I just got a stern talking to by a Sgt. Pluck. He said it was dangerous to always be cycling amidst the accreted black air and didn’t I know that my bicycle and I are in danger of getting our personalities mixed up due to the interchange of atoms. He said there’s more people than I’d guess who are half bicycle in this town.

  156. Smut Clyde said,

    April 10, 2008 at 5:16

    I am more concerned about the gradual interchange of atoms between nose-snorted coffee and the keyboard on which the coffee is snorted. It is the large component of caffeine mollycules in the keys that makes them shift restlessly around and be in the wrong place for my fingers to find them.

  157. mikey said,

    April 10, 2008 at 5:19

    I guess I don’t “get” movies.

    I like bits.

    The opining of “The Magnificent Seven” where they take the dead indian up the hill. Also, in that movie, where Vin checks all his weapons before the final battle, and where they make the decision to go back to the villiage and fight.

    The scene in “Commando” where he loads up on the beach. That rocks.

    The scene in “Tombstone” where Doc takes on Ringo.

    The scene in “Reservoir Dogs” where the crazy guy goes down hard.

    The scene in “Heavy Metal” where Den doesn’t want his “dork hanging out”.

    I’ve got my moments. I just can’t do movies.

    Y’know?

    mikey

  158. Clint said,

    April 10, 2008 at 5:39

    And Matt McMuffin goes into the killfile.

  159. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    April 10, 2008 at 5:40

    I never saw “Reservoir Dogs”.

    So should I rent it?

    (Disclosure: I don’t rent movies these days, so I wonder about a playback mechanism. I used to have a functioning VCR (back in the nineties), now I just say get offa my lawn, you fuckin’ kidz!)

  160. Hoosier X said,

    April 10, 2008 at 5:43

    The very best movies are a string of excellent bits.

    You mentioned Reservoir Dogs, which is a string of great bits.

    Another one is Ed Wood. I marvel at the screenplay for Ed Wood. Just one great scene after another.

    But, yeah, I watch a lot of movie all the way through just to make sure I’m not missing something awesome. I was watching The Crowd Roars, a not very good auto racing movie with Jimmy Cagney, you get halfway through and there’s a scene where Cagney’s partner crashes and burns to death, and you hear him screaming off-camera, and you see the other racers covering their faces as they drive by because of the burning smell. Man!

    Then there’s the very end of The Crowd Roars! Cagney races to the finish, wins by inches and there’s a blow-out and a spin-out and the two cars crash! Nobody’s hurt that bad, but they are unconscious, and they are being taken to the hospital in separate ambulances. Cagney wakes up and sees the other ambulance ahead of them in traffic and says, “Hey, you’re not gonna let that guy beat us to the hospital, are ya?” And the driver says, “No sir, Rusty!” and speeds up! The other racer wakes up and says to his ambulance driver, “Hey! Don’t let them pass!” and the driver says “Okis-doke,” and the film ends with these two ambulances going full tilt throught the streets of downtown Indianapolis to the hospital!

    Awesome.

  161. Hoosier X said,

    April 10, 2008 at 5:48

    I love “Reservoir Dogs.”

    I think I saw it ten times during its original release. I just kept going back and going “Wow!”

    I watched it again a few months ago. It holds up really well, IMHO.

    I guess this is your chance to find out if my word means anything when it comes to movies.

    It’s probably my second favorite movie of the 1990s, with Ed Wood being first.

  162. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    April 10, 2008 at 5:52

    Hoosier X, I’ll get around to seeing it, one way or another. Thx.

  163. PeeJ said,

    April 10, 2008 at 6:43

    It seems I did not express myself clearly.

    When I said “a whole cup of coffee,” I meant my go-cup. Whole. Which, being capped and all, led to very little coffee:keyboard atom exchange. The stainless:nose exchange has me a bit conerned, I do admit that.

  164. Hoosier X said,

    April 10, 2008 at 7:14

    thunder, just for a reference point, my favorite movie in 2007 was Grindhouse, and #2 was 300.

  165. jim said,

    April 10, 2008 at 7:22

    Wow, Matt, thanks for yet AGAIN alerting us all to Hussein Obama ( Barack’s secret evil twin brother, I presume) & his diabolical plot to subject the world to “the evils of frotteurism” … now if you’ll excuse me, I have some very important rubbing to do.

    Congratulations – you are now officially accorded the status of SPAM.
    ( Silly Pimp of Asinine Mucilage )
    Please continue to post the exact same ponderous lump of pathologically incoherent bot-text that is doomed to be either more or less totally ignored or laughed at, over & over & over, lest this great honour be rescinded.
    One day, if you work at it very hard, you may be promoted to SPORK.

  166. Nix said,

    April 10, 2008 at 7:25

    Religion For Dummies at talkleft I have been banned again because I was deemed a troll for saying that whoever the winner is we should all vote for who is not McCain. I AM A TROLL!! LOL
    They are following the Religion of Hillary and have put on blinders and will not take them off or allow any dissenting voices.
    How sad they are. No Penis for them!!! LOL

  167. Patkin said,

    April 10, 2008 at 7:30

    Shorter Medved: “We can’t possible have an atheist president, cause it would be so WEIRD! Where would all the calculators go?”

    I love you.

  168. Some Guy said,

    April 10, 2008 at 8:44

    Haha. I don’t mind waiting 150 comments for someone to notice. Glad you enjoyed it; modern politics needs more Red Dwarf.

  169. Hoosier X said,

    April 10, 2008 at 9:12

    Now I’m watching a 1958 film called The Fearmakers which thus far seems to be about the Commie plot to take over the public relations firms and turn all Americans into nuke-hating pacifists, thus making the capitalist world easy prey for the Russkies!

    Oh noes!

    Look! Mel Torme!

  170. Anne Laurie said,

    April 10, 2008 at 9:44

    Well, let’s face it: an atheist is just far less likely to use pleas to the HolyFather and Blessings from God to corral and lead the Amurrican Herd…. And if we couldn’t startle and panic the herd, Gentlemen, how do we protect our phoney baloney jobs? Harrumph! Harrumph!!
    Billy Pilgrim for the win! Although I am compelled to add that Medved is actually a proud member of that Herd — or Flock — forever compelled to stampede from Yon to Hither whenever this week’s Fear Factor is trumpeted. Medved’s purported religion explicitly bans the pledging of allegiance to icons, even very-excellent icons like Our Flag (or so I understand from the foremost of those ‘ten commandments’ Medved is so much in favor of posting everywhere), but Medved can’t imagine himself secure in a nation that doesn’t compel group abasement before the Sacred Symbols (flag, bell, Oval Office occupant). He is the lead sheep in a flock of fear-sweaty, belligerent sheep proudly bleating “One cult good! TWO cults better!” as they frantically scurry up the ramp at the abbatoir, butting and kicking at any heretic (real or imagined) who balks.

  171. Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho said,

    April 10, 2008 at 10:16

    There ain’t no fuckin God cuz I asked Him for a Brawndo and I ain’t got shit for shit. Now I understand everyone’s shit’s emotional right now. But I’ve got a 3 point plan that’s going to fix EVERYTHING. So vote for me and shit.

  172. bago said,

    April 10, 2008 at 11:52

    Cornfed: Be careful, Duckman. A cursory olfactory analysis of this woman’s sweat glands indicates that decades of alcohol ingestion have permeated her cellular structure and made her a prime candidate for spontaneous combustion.

  173. Mrs Tilton said,

    April 10, 2008 at 11:53

    DAS,

    whilst the Anglicans nowadays often sound like the Baptists of yore in these matters

    Can I get an amen?

    One of the most depressing things about the contemporary American politicoreligious scene is the way the baptists have become leading holy warriors of Red State Shinto. This is irony, and not the fun kind, because baptists (whatever nonsense they might personally have believed) were historically among the nation’s strongest champions of church/state separation. And Roger Williams must have been about the most decent man ever to have founded a colony (though William Penn wasn’t so bad either). Go a little farther back to the roots of the tradition, and the anabaptists of the 16th c. were the most likable faction in that religion- and blood-soaked time. (See Luther Blissett’s Q for a fun fictionalisation.)

    On another topic, would the proprietors kindly fire Matt McMahon and hire a troll who writes short posts instead?

  174. kiki said,

    April 10, 2008 at 11:55

    You’re right, Matt. That is irrefutable. In the same way that the statement “Wibble monkey hamster telephone” is irrefutable.

    It’s amazing that anyone can be so pompous and pretentious, yet so utterly incomprehensible, at the same time. It’s like a cross between Christopher Hitchens and that homeless guy down the street who shouts at cars.

  175. Smut Clyde said,

    April 10, 2008 at 12:23

    Just as the Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England
    I’m back from the pub, and it looks like you lot have all gone to bed. Pikers.
    I’m still marveling over Medved’s argument that after so much trouble to break free from the British monarchy, it is necessary now to include an equivalent of HRH the Queen as an intrinsic part of the US constitution.

  176. Patkin said,

    April 10, 2008 at 12:45

    Will no one rid us of these treasonous colonial Tory motherfuckers?

  177. Major Woody said,

    April 10, 2008 at 13:03

    Well, there’s another reason I’ll never be President! Damn!

    But I agree with Medved, as an atheist I am very reluctant to speak the name Jesus. If you say it 3 times in a row, he’s supposed rise from the grave and come back, right? Or is that somebody else, I can never keep these various undead characters straight.

  178. MelodyMaker said,

    April 10, 2008 at 13:09

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ul7X5js1vE

    oh, no. It’s Stevie Wonder doing “Superstition” on Sesame Street. Mr. Hooper on conga’s..

  179. Gary Ruppert said,

    April 10, 2008 at 14:00

    The fact is, liberals and atheists are often the same thing. Both should be banned.

  180. Bill said,

    April 10, 2008 at 14:06

    Do presidents — including our current president, a fellow who’d certainly hold no objections to reciting every word to the Pledge of Allegiance, even those somewhat more recent addenda — actually take part in this ritual every day? Does anyone actually do this, besides elementary school children? Heck, do they even do this anymore, as a general rule?

    IIRC, back in 1988, the first George Bush made a big issue of this in his run for the presidency. There was a flag-burning amendment being considered at the time, which he used as a bludgeon against Dukakis. Bush I claimed that he recited the pledge of allegiance every morning.

  181. Jan Schoenmakers said,

    April 10, 2008 at 14:53

    Oh yeah, those atheists are really dangerous and scary…and Medved has not even mentioned ALL the implications…they would probably change the layout of the Dollar-bills, too. And, as a shockingly intolerant bunch known for their crusades against intelligent design classes, they will certainly try to ban Christians from politics in the end. We should really deny them the right to vote!
    Holy catfish, I always wonder how guys like Medved manage to ignore how ridiculous they are!

  182. Jake H. said,

    April 10, 2008 at 15:33

    Bush I claimed that he recited the pledge of allegiance every morning.

    How did the Simpsons writers not use this in the HW episode?! An opportunity lost…

  183. Jake H. said,

    April 10, 2008 at 15:35

    But I agree with Medved, as an atheist I am very reluctant to speak the name Jesus. If you say it 3 times in a row, he’s supposed rise from the grave and come back, right? Or is that somebody else, I can never keep these various undead characters straight.

    Jesus WOULD have made a totally rad “summon” spell character in Final Fantasy VII. Yet another missed opportunity.

  184. pedestrian said,

    April 10, 2008 at 15:49

    Forget Jesus. Joseph had the power to believe any story, no matter how ridiculous, that would allow him to go on thinking that his wife wasn’t a cheating whore. Imagine if we all had that ability!

  185. histrogeek said,

    April 10, 2008 at 16:16

    It’s amazing that not only did Medved dedicate his time to attack a strawman, but the strawman severely kicked his ass. Everything he said is so stupid that I am afraid only because someone out there is likely to find it “thought”-provoking (and that person is likely not institutionalized as he/she would be in an enlightened society and probably can vote).

  186. Pandagon :: Unless of course the civic, tolerant god is a Disco Ball :: April :: 2008 said,

    April 10, 2008 at 16:31

    [...] Via Sadly, No, Michael Medved wrote a rather revealing column. I mean, it’s stupid, but as this quote that Travis plucks out shows, it’s revealing. Now that we’ve broken barriers with history’s first viable female and African-American candidates, opponents of organized religion hope for a new campaign in which a brave politician makes a credible run for the highest office even while proclaiming his non-belief. [...]

  187. roac said,

    April 10, 2008 at 17:32

    Re Matt McMahon’s post at 3:02: Everyone needs to learn to recognize the Complaint Letter Generator when it makes an apperance.

  188. TV's Frank said,

    April 10, 2008 at 19:35

    SQUAAAAAAAAAANTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  189. Bill S said,

    April 10, 2008 at 23:07

    Jan, he’s not ignoring how ridiculous he is. He’s just so totally lacking in self awareness that he doesn’t even know how ridiculous he is.

  190. Anne Laurie said,

    April 10, 2008 at 23:44

    IIRC, back in 1988, the first George Bush made a big issue of this in his run for the presidency. There was a flag-burning amendment being considered at the time, which he used as a bludgeon against Dukakis. Bush I claimed that he recited the pledge of allegiance every morning.

    … and then used the Constitution to wipe the resulting effluvia off his arse, replied the Democrats. I *still* believe that the 1988 was Lee Atwater’s first and most successful attempt at presidential vote-stealing.

    Mrs. Tilton, the expression Red-State Shinto is so excellent that I intend to steal quote it as often as possible. That’s exactly the kind of ‘my country, right or wrong’ jingoism that Medved and his fellows want to see legislated here!

  191. Brandi said,

    April 11, 2008 at 3:22

    Hey gbear!

    Remember when in the last Medved discussion here I brought up the Hollywood Hall of Shame book?

    The library got it from another branch for me Tuesday, and I just read through it today (I spent Wednesday in San Fran, managing to completely avoid the Olympic torch debacle– but that’s another story).

    To be fair to Medved, I overestimated both the number and nature of the gay jokes aimed at Rock Hudson: there are only two, and they’re not particularly mean-spirited, nor particularly funny. One is a comment on Blake Edwards and Julie Andrews’ marriage shortly after Darling Lili’s debut (“It was by all accounts a touching ceremony…, though Rock Hudson passed up his opportunity to serve as one of the bridesmaids) and a picture caption (“Rock Hudson (as Major Larrabee) explains to his shocked co-pilot why they call it a Bi-Plane.”)

    Amazingly, they don’t make many gay jokes at the even more obvious targets of Liberace (featured in the movie Sincerely Yours) or The Village People (for Can’t Stop the Music), nor many fat jokes about Elizabeth Taylor– perhaps because Kenneth Anger was busy using them in Hollywood Babylon II. (They do make a couple of fat jokes about Kate Smith, but that’s pretty hard to avoid.)

    On the whole, most of the jokes in the book are rather limp, with most of the best humor coming from documenting some of the bizarre mishaps that befell these films during their shooting histories.

    It might be interesting (in a granny-skinningly insane way) to see how Mr. Medved would review Mohammed, Messenger of God *these* days…

  192. rea said,

    April 11, 2008 at 3:30

    Just as the Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England, the President functions as head of the “Church of America” . . . For instance, try to imagine an atheist president issuing the annual Thanksgiving proclamation.

    Does the man know nothing whatever about the history of the United States? Why were those Pilgrims over here giving thanks for not starving in the American wilderness? Didn’t it have something to do with rejecting the notion of the established Church of England, with the monarch as its head?

  193. Bill S said,

    April 11, 2008 at 3:44

    Well, I lost my copy of “The Golden Turkey Awards” many years ago, but if my memory serves, there were quite a few instances of homophobia in it. For instance, to tease readers, there was a fake entry included in the book-readers were supposed to guess which one it was. What did they come up with? A gay porn film about Jesus. (It was easy to spot as a fake, since the attempt to describe it was laughable.)

  194. Brandi said,

    April 11, 2008 at 6:11

    You know, I’m still not sure which film in Golden Turkey is the fake; supposedly it’s “Dog of Norway”, since we see Muki the Wonder Hound sitting with the authors in their “About the Authors” picture. Him (the Jesus porn) seems to be a good candidate, but a book called Divine Images: A History of Jesus on the Screen by Roy Kinnard and Tim Davis mentions it (no stills or data, though). This Film Threat blog entry claims an ad was found but they don’t display it– but you can see it here.

    Finally, in the interview with Phil Tucker (Robot Monster), Tucker supposedly mentions a film called Space Jockey, adding that while he thought his other films were okay, this one “was a real piece of shit. In fact, I’d say it’s the worst film ever made.” Given that he thought pretty well of his efforts in Robot Monster, the comment just seems too good to be true (practically has a lampshade hung on it)…

  195. mike said,

    April 11, 2008 at 6:24

    No, if you want to read stupid, read Steve Kellmeyer: http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2008/04/living-like-animals.html

  196. abob said,

    April 11, 2008 at 22:00

    Billy Graham brought millions of Christians to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Millions of Jews have no problem honoring the work of Billy Graham even though Judaism rejects the belief than Jesus Christ is God. Medved’s absolutist rhetoric fails to fit human beings into neat categories.

  197. Cock on the Tyne said,

    July 22, 2011 at 17:18

    That’s Psalm 31, not 23, you athiestic CUNT.

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()