XTREEEEEEEME Wingnut Preach-Off 5: Back in the Ring
I haven’t done an XTREME Wingnut Preach-Off in a while, but with Easter coming up, I figured it’d be a good time to stage another match. Today’s preach-off is a battle for the ages featuring two of the world’s greatest fighters, the Reverend Mark H. Creech and our reigning champion, Pastor Joseph Grant Swank, Jr. So without further ado… Lllllllllllllllet’s get rrrrrready to RUUUUM-BLLLLLLLLLLE!!!!!!!!
Let’s begin with our challenger, the Rev. Creech. This week, the good reverend has penned another brilliant column attacking evolution. Let’s read:
Seed Magazine Writes About the ‘Clergy Letter Project’
By Rev. Mark H. Creech
March 31, 2006Seed Magazine is a part of Seed Media Group, which describes itself as “an emerging science media and entertainment company” that creates and distributes “content that communicates science’s fast changing place in our culture to an international audience.”
In a recent article titled “Strange Bedfellows,” Seed reported on the Clergy Letter Project, which garnered the signatures of over 10,000 clergy who claim the “theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth” that is compatible with Christianity. Because I had written a column entitled “Rebuking the Clergy Letter Project,” Seed requested an interview with me for the story.
I’m sure the folks at the Discovery Institute were thrilled to have the Rev. Creech, a man who supports jailing cohabitants, speaking on their behalf.
The article, I thought, was certainly skewed toward evolution, accepting rather blindly New York Times science writer Ken Chang’s assessment that the Discovery Institute’s “Dissent from Darwin” statement (a statement by over 500 doctoral scientists expressing doubts concerning the claims of evolution) was without credibility because most of its signers were evangelical non-biologists.
Well, when the people who attack a key theory of biology aren’t actually biologists themselves, it does tend to undermine their credibility a wee bit.
According to John West of the Discovery Institute, most of the scientists Chang interviewed didn’t base their doubts of Darwinism on their religion, but their scientific views. And it shouldn’t present a problem some of the scientists were non-biologists when so many of Darwinism’s most avid defenders are non-biologists.
How can you argue with logic like that? Oh sure, you could point out that most of evolution’s most avid defenders, like PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and Kenneth R. Miller, are actual biologists. But really, who are these so-called “biologists,” with their “empirical data” and “scientific methods,” to tell us how life on Earth “evolved?” They’re just guessing anyway. Think about it: were they around 6,000 years ago when God created the Earth? Hell no! Clearly, their opinions should be regarded with the same heft as the kooks who believe Noah brought dinosaurs with him on the ark.
Moreover, West argues the single largest group of the signers was biologists (154 of the 514). He adds: “Of course the list also includes many scientists specializing in chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics/statistics, and related disciplines. But since Darwinists continually assert that their theory has implications for many scientific fields, why shouldn’t scientists from these other fields have the right to speak out?”
Absolutely. And if PZ Myers writes a long diatribe about how we should adopt the scientifically-proven Hollow Earth Theory instead of the long-discredited “theory” of plate tectonics, then dammit, his views should be given the same weight as those of actual geologists.
(And by the way, Dr. Myers- how’s your Hollow Earth book been coming along? I can’t wait to hear about your experiences hanging out with the subterranean mole people.)
One aspect I did, however, appreciate about the article was its objectivity regarding the Clergy Letter Project. It simply states: “While most of the signing clergy interviewed espoused the common theme that their religion is pro-science, many others were mistaken about the science they apparently supported.” Indeed, many on that list are obviously in error — failing to recognize that evolution by definition repudiates the Scripture’s teaching of a Sovereign God and the full scope of His work in Christ to the consummation.
Y’know what else repudiates the Scripture’s literal truth? Reality. I guess we should stop teaching that as well.
As I noted in the Seed article: “Clergy, like those that have signed the Clergy Letter Project — those that have given away a portion of the truth in order to defend the rest of it — are no real friends of true religion or the Bible.” They have, without question, embraced something that is neither good science nor religion.
I love how people like Creech feel they have the authority to tell people that they aren’t true Christians because they don’t believe the universe was created in a fucking week. It’s kind of like how Ann Bartow, a.k.a. the Mighty Enforcer of All True Leftism, can can take away my left-winger badge just because I had the unmitigated gall to make jokes about David Horowitz’s name.
When Maggie Witlin, the author of the piece in Seed Magazine contacted me about an interview, she sent me a series of very probing and insightful questions via e-mail that I sought to answer thoroughly. However, only a smidgen of what I gave Witlin was used in her article.
Damned liberal media bitch! She should have penned a 5,000 word profile about Rev. Creech’s theory that lesbian witches are sending invisible spiders to attack him while he’s in the shower!
I thought many would be interested in knowing what her questions were and how they were answered. I’ve included them below with a prayerful spirit that God might use what was said as a means of defending and furthering the truth.
Oh, this is gonna be good. I can only imagine how many laughs Maggie Witlin had while reading the good preacher’s answers.
1. What was your first reaction to the Clergy Letter Project? What do you find most troubling about it?
I must confess my first reaction to The Clergy Letter Project was one of grief, but not one of surprise. We are, unfortunately, living in a day when clergy by the masses are exchanging the inerrant and eternal truth of Holy Scripture for the newest morality, theology, or latest intellectual sophistry.
In other words, many in the clergy are now living in reality, and a that’s bad thing. As Jesus Himself might say if He were Gary Coleman, “What art thou talkin’ ’bout, Creech?”
2. Very briefly (because I can gather this from your AgapePress editorial), what are your scientific concerns with evolution and members of the clergy favoring its teaching?
Evolution is not supported by the majority of scientific laws, such as the laws of first cause, the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics.
That might be the wingnuttiest thing I’ve read all year. Wow.
3. Do you believe that science is a way to truth? How much truth can it provide, and what kinds of truth can it provide?
I genuinely believe that all truth is from God, whether truth in science or in the Bible. The Ten Commandments and Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount are surely from God. But so is the musical scale, the multiplication table, the chemical composition of water, the photosynthesis of a plant, and the laws of gravity — all these factual principles are from God. God is the source of truth.
Tooth decay, pubic lice and flesh-eating bacteria — all of these things come from God too. Thanks a lot, Big Guy. You might want to try designing stuff that’s a little less disgusting next time.
OK, Creech’s column goes on for another five pages, and it’s starting to give me a headache. Therefore, we’re going to move on to our reigning champeeeeeen, Pastor Swank! Here’s his latest column, which is sexxxily titled “SEX, NOT SOUL, CONSUMES THE CHURCH”:
State Street Episcopal Church in Portland, near where I live, had a rector who championed the gay cause while in the pulpit. Then he retired recently, big write up in the newspaper and all that. In the article I read that he had a nice retirement home to live in — with his long-time male companion.
Guess what? You got it. Nuff said, right? Right!
Whoa, you mean gay people might actually be in favor of gay rights? Inconceivable!
But it amazes me how such Prayer Book enthusiasts, long on tradition and high on protocol, could fall prey to homosexuality as a legit. Doesn’t make much social sense, let alone biblical sense. But, again, if any group can wiggle waggle their way into the whatevers, it’s the liberal Episcopalians.
Hey, don’t forget the Catholic church- a bunch of their priests got caught wiggling their waggles into the whatevers of young boys.
Now I have noted when in an Episcopal worship — of which I have attended many down through the years — that aesthetics is a big thing with that end of the religious spectrum — candle wax and pipe organs and vestments and tapestries and kneeling pads and leather bound niceties for the bishops and so on and so on.
I have read that gays go in for a lot of aesthetic ambiance. So it just might be that that kind of religious regalia attracts gays.
Uhm… did Pastor Swank just suggest that gays are attracted to certain churches because they like rubbing leather-bound Bibles on their skin while staring at the long, hard cylinders of pipe organs? Seriously, did he really just say that?
I have a hunch that some of that kind of fancy frill attracts certain gays into the priesthood, too.
So if you want to keep gays out of your church, make sure your priests wear the blandest, most unfashionable clothes imaginable. For example, an outfit like this is perfectly acceptable:
Above: Not teh gay.
A frock like this, on the other hand, will draw gays into your church by the thousands:
Above: Ooooooh, look at that cuh-youte little hat!
Then, too, there are a lot of concerts and art shows and teas and ladies’ shindigs going on in the Episcopal world of movement; therefore, gays attract to that kind of bug light as well.
The best thing to do would be to ban women from the church, since they’re more responsible for turning men gay than anything else.
OK, those are your two contestants this week. Now it’s your turn to vote on this week’s champion!
Hot wax, fabu clothes, and kneeling with leather-bound niceties, eh? Very evocative of what Swanky looks for in a high church experience. Why, you can almost hear the organ swell.
Swank, clearly. Poor Creech never had a chance.
OMG! You picked on TEH GHEYZ!!! Now you’re going to lose BOTH the “feminist” and the “gay advocate” ribbons off your “True Liberal” medallion! If you keep this up, they’re going to kick you out of the Liberal Scouts alltogether.
That being said, I gotta give it to Creech. The canards about the laws of thermodynamics always get me crap-stompingly angry. I am forced to imagine Creech standing in front of his refrigerator, opening it, and proclaiming “Lo! A MIRACLE!!!”
Because it’s, like, energy being put into a system to take the heat out of it, which, by his understanding of the second law, should be impossible.
How do these people manage to graduate from high school?
I, however, will never get a job as a computer programmer, for I cannot even manage to close tags correctly. D’oh!
Candle wax…sperm
Pipe organ…dick
Vestments and tapestries…frilly, gaylord things
Kneeling pads…duh!
Leather bound niceties…a sling suspended from the ceiling, among possibilities too numerous to mention.
This is the filthiest thing I’ve ever read Swank write. Swank, you ol’ dog!
Oh, and he wins. He had me at whatevers. Besides, I don’t entertain creationist/ID discussions anymore. At some point, you just have to stop listening.
…lesbian witches are sending invisible spiders to attack him while he’s in the shower!Ah HA! I fucking KNEW my meds were ok! Thanks, Brad, for exposing their wicked plan.
Dammit, I was gonna take away your lib credentials over making fun of t3h gh3yz, but jillian beat me to it!
I don’t know how I can choose here… Swank’s gay article was funny, and I was leaning towards him, but then I reread Creech’s reasoning for objecting to evolution. Not sure what this has to do with evolution, but it puts him over the top as the winner!
I’m afraid the good pastor Swank is going to lose his title here. I mean, let’s be honest–Hating on the gays is SO 2004. How can that possibly put him on the leading edge of Wingnuttia? Hell, it’s nothing but a checklist item for wingnuts.
But with all of the clear, careful science available, for Creech to use that old, badly discredited “laws of thermodynamics” argument against “Darwinism” (um, I think he means evolution and common descent, but an “ism” sounds everso much more evil) is by far more Wingnutty than just another gay/ickysex/tolerance hating column from Mr. Swank. He’s off the island.
mikey
Mole people? I’ll have you know the hollow earth is full of invertebrates: worm people, spider people, squid people.
Your spinocentric bigotry is showing, Brad.
Spider people? Invisible spider people? And what about their lesbian/Wiccan overlords, hmmmm? What say you about them, Mr. Dr. Myers guy? Please respond soon because I need to shower.
(a statement by over 500 doctoral scientists expressing doubts concerning the claims of evolution)
Sweet Lord! 500 scientists?! That’s like, 1.5 percent of the population of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan! I surrender to your incontestable argument from authority, Mr. Creech. Well played, sir.
Guess what? You got it. Nuff said, right? Right!
Pastor Swank has merged with Stan Lee! I guess we can look forward to stories of Dr. Doom organizing homo nups and Captain America frighting muslims killers global.
Gotta go with his Swankiness. Wow, his gaydar is way more acute than mine. He seemed to really enjoy writing about the kneepads!
Funny how the only references to a “law of first cause” I can find are from pro-creationist sites. Not Science, not Nature, not the Journal of Pediatric Physiology…nothing.
It must be awesome to feel secure enough to make on ones’ own laws of physics.
I like how Swank is recycling anti-clerical arguments from the sixteenth freakin’ century. But he’s being screwy and sarcastic, and the other goober is absolutely serious, so it’s Creech over Swank this time around. Down goes Frazier!
I vote for Creech, also on the basis of his “law of first cause”.
Now I have noted when in an Episcopal worship — of which I have attended many down through the years — that aesthetics is a big thing with that end of the religious spectrum — candle wax and pipe organs and vestments and tapestries and kneeling pads and leather bound niceties for the bishops and so on and so on.
I have read that gays go in for a lot of aesthetic ambiance. So it just might be that that kind of religious regalia attracts gays.
Paraphrase: “I keep going to these gay-magnet sermons over and over and over again. Don’t know what keeps drawing me back.”
For the complete lack of self-awareness, the aptly named “Swank” gets my vote.
sCreech soo gets my vote because everyone knows that the world was created after Pangu (son of Yin and Yang) hatched from an egg, which split with the light part becoming the sky and the heavy part becoming the earth.
Sheesh!
First, we must mock them both equally…
Wot, they aren’t?!?
Yeah! FUCK THAT SHIT, MAN!!!1!
Oh, oops, I’ve been mocking Brad!
Swank continues, “As it happens, I have my leather bound nicety on right now, and a chubbie global it has given me!” Really, Pastor, you should be so ashamed!
Oh, and I vote, as usual, for Swank.
I don’t think witches would do that, by the way. They love nature, and would never do something so egregious it would permanently traumatize the poor innocent spiders.
Creech, by a longshot. I mean, come on, folks “the law of first cause”, that’s so 13th century it’s just adoooooooooorable.
I can’t believe Swank isn’t running away with this. C’mon, people, don’t be impressed by recycled creationist talking points that the guy probably cribbed from a Chick tract; the Swankster basically accused two major Christian denominations of being gay.
Swankster with a first round knockout.
Creech is such a great opponent for MR. Swank. I thought no one could possibly challenge him.
But I gotta vote for the one, the only, Pastor S for his intramural cattiness. I mean, bad mouthing the Episcopalians because they’re like, SO GAY! With the wax and the leather and…
Paging Pastor Freud.
Oh, and “wiggle waggling into the whatevers”
Pure goofy gold, that is.
Come on guys, this isn’t even a contest. So Creech thinks the Bible is the bees knees. Big deal. Nobody beats the Swanksta. There can be nobody in the entire religious community that can compete with the zeal, the obsession, the repression, the self-denied homosexual tendencies, of the Swanksta. Pastor S. is the winner, time and again, hands down, it keeps coming back Swank every time. There is probably no other man on the planet with a greater appreciation for the male form, or a more insatiable curiousity about the homosexual lifestyle than Pastor Swank. Preach it Swank, I like the way you talk.
We have now discovered the secret behind Swank’s prolificness He plagiarizes shamelessly from former columns.
Compare the Swank post Brad ridicules today with this one that Swank wrote in 2003. They are virtually identical.
I caught this because I posted last year on the 2003 column.
I think we need to see how much of this is going on with Pastor Swank’s, er, work.
Oh, and since I forgot to vote, I, of course, vote for Swank.
Count one vote for the sCreechster. His Swankiness has got some good religiously insane sodomite bashing in his vapid ramblings. But sCreech is lecturing scientists on how they should do their job. Same religious insanity, but combined with the hubris to believe that he knows more about science than people who have made it their life’s work! sCreech – by the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
Oh, yeah – I thought it was the Crab People who lived in the hollow center of the earth. Shows what I know…
Gotta go with the Swanksta- “Creationism v. Evolution” is so last month, whereas Swank v. tEh ghAY is always timeless.
Compare the Swank post Brad ridicules today with this one that Swank wrote in 2003. They are virtually identical.
I caught this because I posted last year on the 2003 column. – Clif
Who woulda thought we SHOULD use Clif’s Notes?
You can’t fool me Rev. Creech. It’s turtles all the way down!
I gotta give it to the Swankster. Sure gay-bashing is so last century, but, it’s his mighty right hook.
So Creech thinks the Bible is the bees knees. Big deal. Nobody beats the Swanksta.
I have to agree here: Swank by a mile. You have to take the adjective/noun reversal thing into account – “mortals unlawful” is perhaps my favorite descriptive phrase ever written. Pair this little Freudian goldmine up with his last “Lessons Immortal” or whatever about the hot, muscular 18-year-old who ended up killing himself, and you start to see what’s… (ahem) driving Swankie-pants.
a statement by over 500 doctoral scientists expressing doubts concerning the claims of evolution I think it takes more than 500 signatures to get something on the ballot in my teeny hometown. And I have a “science” degree too –in journalism.
Having said that, I still have to vote Swank. That was just tooo funny. The righteous indignation at religious vestments and leather kneelers. Horrors.
I vote for Swank, plus I actually kind of agree with his theory about churches being really gay. Of course he’s still coo-coo for cocoa puffs, and probably the worst writer of all time.
I thought I was going with Creech, what with his “law of first causes” and violations of the First Law of Thermodynamics (I don’t think I’ve ever read anything that suggested that evolution violates energy conservation before). The reference to violations of the Second Law was hackneyed, but he redeemed himself by garnering the double blink for suggesting that *evolutionist* were trying to impose their version of truth on all branches of science. A truly original effort; I was concerned for the reigning champion.
But the Swankster pulls through!! “All that music, and fine clothing, and luxurious ritual accoutrements… don’t you think it’s all a little… GAAAYYY!!??” The fact that he was copying his own column makes it even better.
Swank just called the Episcopalians a bunch of sissies?
No he di’int!
Swank is the winner in a homophobic landslide!
Christ on a cracker. Swank trounced Creech – choked him on the ropes and knocked him cold.
Creech’s lackluster attacks on evolution – including his fractured take on the First Cause (Cosmological) Argument – are as nothing compared to the grammatically challenged homophobia of Pastor Swank.
I mean, the Swankster argues gays are attracted to certain churches because of the titillating architecture! There’s no way they could be choosing some churches over others based on whether they’ll be accepted; they’re merely doing so because they want to be butt-fucked with lit candles or beaten with leather-bound Bibles.
I’m gonna go ahead and cop to the invisible spiders thing. My bad.
Meanwhile, I’d like to use the comments here to call Swank a “fuckwit”, too. Or as Clif suggested when I did it over at his place, a “witfuck”.
My vote’s for Creech because I just want Swank to feel just the tiniest bit bummed that he’s not the craziest nutjob on the planet this week.
BTW, I own the hollow earth book, and they’re alien robots, okay? No squids nor moles. Depressing, but there it is.
OMG!! Sidhe knows about the Deros!! We must stop her!
But…whaaa, hey, didn’t the Catholics just cop to the reason so many preists are teh gay and pedophiles is due to the subliminal pornographic images in church artwork and architecture? Or did I just stumble into Swank World? And everybody knows that the Episcopalians are just lazy Catholics anyway…COULD HE BE RIGHT?
Aiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
*brain melts and begins leaking out of ears*
(In case you hadn’t figured it out already, I gotta go with Swanky, if for no other reason than “wiggle waggle their way into the whatevers”. Genius!)
P.S. D.Sidhe: Excellent work with the spiders, btw.
Y’know, spiders get a bad rap, and unlike squid, they have no advocate of PZ Myers’ caliber. We have a deal with the spiders in our house (which are all, fortunately, visible): You hang around and eat the bugs we don’t like and we’ll leave you alone. The only caveat is, if one of the spiders encroaches too far into human territory (e.g., crawling too close to a toothbrush), it’s fair game. This entente has served both populations well for several years now, and I am disappointed that any of you so-called LIBERALS would propagate arachnid stereotypes of the sort I’ve seen here.
Oh yes, I forgot to mention: All of our spiders are named Bob.
I’m pro-spider, actually. The wild ones and the pet ones, and the hallucinogenic ones that seem to be popping up since I doubled the dose of blood pressure meds or whatever that were prescribed to stem the flow of migraines. (No, I have no idea why it would work either, possibly the spiders are supposed to distract me.)
In real life, though, it’s my job to relocate spiders to the ceiling to keep the cats from eating them. I’m especially fond of jumping spiders for whatever reason. It’s just cool to watch them trek across the ceiling upside down.
So, no, okay, I would probably not actually inflict Creech or Swank on them. (“Release the phone spiders!”)
And yes, oh yes, I know all about the Deros. Also the Wisconsin Blue Thing. It’s far too late to stop me. Nonetheless, I find your three dimensions cute, for on the moon we have five… thousand.
(This may explain the spiders, come to think of it.)
And Jillian, you are my inner-earth sunshine.
Are your hallucinogenic spiders also named Bob?
“6,000 years ago when God created the Earth”
You know I’ve always wondered how fundies feel about astronomy.
If God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, which kind of year was it? Earth years? Or Jupiter years? How is a year computed in a universe with multiple planets and solar systems with varying orbits?
And how about this:
“The Ten Commandments and Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount are surely from God. But so is the musical scale…”
Which scale? You suppose he thinks there’s only ONE musical scale?
At least, only one godly musical scale. The goddamn pentatonic scale — that’s from the DEVIL!
“6,000 years ago when God created the Earth”
You know I’ve always wondered how fundies feel about astronomy.
If God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, which kind of year was it? Earth years? Or Jupiter years? How is a year computed in a universe with multiple planets and solar systems with varying orbits?
And how about this:
“The Ten Commandments and Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount are surely from God. But so is the musical scale…”
Which scale? You suppose he thinks there’s only ONE musical scale?
At least, only one godly musical scale. The goddamn pentatonic scale — that’s from the DEVIL!
Whoops, sorry for thedouble post, that was me and it came through anonymous.
All your hallucinogenic spiders named Bob are belong to us.
I gotta back up Brad on the Mole people, even though I feel a bit of trepidation to be contradicting ‘Squiddo’ Myers.
After all, no less an authority than MST3K documented their existence, with an assist from John Agar.
But we’ve got to do something about the invisible spiders, although I am pretty sure that all or ours are named Bill. Our cat must have cut a deal; he won’t even go after them. I can’t go to sleep, for fear that they are lurking on the ceiling above, just waiting for me to breathe through an open mouth, so they can drop right in and lay their eggs in my esophagus…
The hallucinogenic ones are named “Inderol”, actually. And the others seem to be female, based on the egg cases.
I’m thinking about naming them all “Goldfish”.
I lurves me teh jumping spiders. My hovel grows a whole bunch every summer, some of them fairly large (about 1/2″ across). They have much better vision than ordinary spiders, and can clearly make you out from more than a foot away. They’re fascinating to watch whilst on the hunt, When they’re pouncing, particularly on vertical surfaces, they set down a line of webbing in case they miss or are otherwise dislodged, so that they don’t just plummet. I’ve seen them overpower bugs that are twice as big as they are. I also get an assortment of orb weaver spiders, though they make walking around at night a wee bit hazardous–they sometimes spin webs from a tree branch to the ground, with them sitting at face level. You don’t want to walk into that….
But if they’re invisible, how do we know they’re spiders, why couldn’t they be arachnids instead??? DUH!!!1!!!1!!
It’s like that hilarious article over at my great source of amusement, Answers in Genesis, “but they’re fish dammit!” They actually claimed that it wasn’t a transitional fossil because this fossil had some aspects of fish, but it also had some aspects of land animals, but weren’t yet fully developed. What they hell do they think ‘transitional’ means?? Doesn’t even one of them have access to a dictionary or something more than a grade-school education?
Actually, you can keep the spiders – all of ’em. I’m practically a full-blown arachnophobic. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had the screaming-and-blindly-backpedaling reaction in my life. The only thing that’s worse is when the person rushing into the room to see what the fuss is about takes one look at the spider AND HAS THE EXACT SAME REACTION.
Pathetic, I know.
Swank all the way, baby. Anyone can trot out a few lame arguments against evolution, but it takes someone special to suggest that the grandeur of Episcopalian ritual appeals to homosexuals’ sense of aesthetics.
Swank all the way, baby. Anyone can trot out a few lame arguments against evolution, but it takes someone special to suggest that the grandeur of Episcopalian ritual appeals to homosexuals’ sense of aesthetics.
“500 doctoral scientists”? That’s so cute! I wonder who’d win in a steel-cage deathmatch between the 500 doctoral scientists and the (currently) 730 scientists named Steve who say that “evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.”
Leave it to the LIEBERAL DEMONRATS to espouse musical relativism!
There is ONE and only ONE MUSICAL SCALE, twelve disciples, one Redeemer and nooooo kangaroos!
Despite the fact that I imagine that good pastor Creech could no more recite the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics then the lyrics to 2LiveCrew’s “Me So Horny”, I have to give this one to the Swankster, solely on the use of the word “”kneepads”.
He he. Kneepads.
I think it’s time for me to go back to church!
Hmmmmm, this is the closest of all the Swank-o-thons. I’m not sure if voting for Creech is an effect of anti-Swank voting or if I’m entirely swayed by the wingnuttery of Creech to the point where the equating of vestments to gay-metrosexuality isn’t as impressive.
In the end, I am going to do faith-based voting and go with Swank.
Swank all the way, baby. Anyone can trot out a few lame arguments against evolution, but it takes someone special to suggest that the grandeur of Episcopalian ritual appeals to homosexuals’ sense of aesthetics.
I can’t believe the Swankster didn’t notice that the Episcopalians have replaced all their traditional hymns with show tunes.