Switzerblog

Seriously? If nothing else, number one. We should burn another religion’s holy book because it doesn’t take the same view of Jesus as Christianity? So I guess by that logic it makes sense for Muslims to burn Bibles for not recognizing the Prophet Muhammed as the final Prophet. (hint: No. It’s equally stupid)

I especially love number four – that no contemporary writing about the Prophet exist. Really??? Of all groups, the Christians are using this as an argument against Islam? A group whose holy book was written piecemeal hundreds of years after any facts may have taken place has no business throwing stones on this topic. (let’s just ignore the fact that the book itself was assembled by committee)

From number five:

But in the second Medina period he was "corrupted by power and worldly ambitions." (Ibn Warraq) These are characteristics that God hates.

Bwahahaha!! Seriously, you guys, you make it too easy. This, from a church that has spent its entire history gathering worldy power.

Seriously, when you get past the nonsense about the book not being kept in heaven, you could just insert “Bible” for Koran and “Christianity” for Islam, and there would be literally no difference in logic. (well, that’s not entirely true. On number nine, you’d have to change “the West” to “Sex”)

Okay, I’m done for now. Sorry, this is just crazy-ass.

I wrote a year or so ago about Jeremy Scully, who was murdered by the jealous husband of his lover.  Here’s my original article about it.  On Friday, his killer was sentenced to 23 years in prison, which is right and just.  Here’s the Seattle Times article. What’s up my craw, and what does this have to do with prudery, my new readers may ask?  It’s in the headline.  “23-year prison term in Mount Vernon for ‘swinger’”.  Really?  He was sentenced to 23 years for swinging? (Mind you, I have no doubt his sentence was influenced by his sexual lifestyle. Having no proof of that, however, I’m going to let that issue lie for the time being)  Why doesn’t it read “23-year prison term in Mount Vernon for killer”? Or, as the original tweet about this read, “23-year prison term in love triangle murder case” – at least that’s accurate, while maintaining salaciousness. Unlike the tweet you see to the right; this was the “corrected” tweet that came out a few minutes after the first.

A man who pleaded guilty to killing his wife’s lover has been sentenced in Mount Vernon to 23 years in prison.

That’s the opening sentence in the Times article.  I’m down with that! Look, I don’t justify the affair that was happening. Clearly, Scully and the wife didn’t comport themselves appropriately, and clearly this guy reacted to it all with entirely too much violence. There’s being a jealous husband, and there’s being a murderer. But none of it has anything to do with swinging. The fact that they had multiple sexual partners, in fact, could not be further from the point.

“But the lifestyle led to the affair!” says you. No, says I. They could just as easily have met at a book club. These were people who, as part of their sexual life, included other people. None of those folks became involved in an affair with the wife. It just happened to be this one guy. “But this lifestyle always leads to jealousy!” Not any more than any other “lifestyle”. Jealousy is a normal, if unwanted, part of any relationship. Your wife becomes too friendly with the guy from work, your husband starts spending more long nights “working late”. Often, this is just a blip in a relationship, but sometimes there is an affair and relationships end as a result. Jealousy is love’s early warning system. Nobody likes the klaxon horn sound, but it serves a purpose.

The reality, that our prudish society is so loath to accept, is that people have different sexual desires. Some people desire monogamy very sincerely, and happily live that “lifestyle” out in peace and happiness. Some people desire multiple partners, while loving only one, and also happily live their “lifestyle” out in peace and happiness. Some people want it rough, some like sex involving knife play (a step too far for this blogger!), some are even capable of loving multiple people, and build long-lasting, loving relationships with others within that framework.  Society tells us that these “alternative lifestyles” are the easy way out – nothing could be further from the truth. The more people involved, the more rules, the more patience, the more work must be done to ensure everyone is comfortable and those early warning klaxon horns are kept silent.

Society tells us monogamy is normal, and is what we’re “designed” for. If this is so, why do studies on fidelity show that, at minimum, 50% of people engage in infidelity at some point, possibly as high as 85%? Because we’re not built for fidelity (I say this only to address the blanket claim that we are). The reality is, it’s normal to desire others. Some call it window-shopping and are happy to limit themselves to that guilty pleasure, but sexual desire outside the confines of a relationship is in fact very common – swingers are doing nothing more than accepting that desire and incorporating it into their relationship. And, like people in a non-swinging relationship, sometimes they break the rules and become emotionally involved with someone – when you break the agreed-upon rules, whether those rules include no sexual partners or many, you are in fact cheating once you cross that line.

And that’s all that happened here. A wife broke the rules of her marriage – they’d agreed to sex outside the marriage, but not emotional attachment – and unhappiness was the result. It’s a story that happens every day, around the world. A wife, a husband, a girlfriend or boyfriend…once they go outside the agreed-upon parameters of the relationship, harm is done. But it is never acceptable, no matter how befouled an agreement or arrangement, to kill another person as a result.  This is one thing all of society has agreed on, across the board. And that’s why the next sentence in this story upsets me almost as much as the headline.

Skagit County prosecutors say 36-year-old Kenneth McBride and his wife were in a swinging lifestyle with multiple sex partners, but he became jealous when his wife fell in love with Jeremy Scully.

Why can’t that sentence just leave out “and his wife were in a swinging lifestyle with multiple sex partners, but”? Why not “McBride became jealous when his wife fell in love with Jeremy Scully”? The sentence carries the same weight, and conveys the same message, does it not? And does so without adding an additional layer of shaming to all parties, as though an affair leading to a murder is somehow not ‘bad’ enough.

I crave the day when the private sex lives of our fellow travelers in this world are truly private. When we won’t care who’s sleeping with whom, who’s gay, who’s got multiple partners, who likes it kinky. I long for a time when we’ll care about how we actually treat one another, as people. When murder is the salacious part of a sad story like this, rather than the sexual partners of the killer and the killed. There is no one alive who doesn’t understand the idea that we all have private sexual kinks – whether it’s just different positions, wild throw-down orgies, or wearing diapers – just different things that trip our trigger. Yet we all pretend to be outraged when the kinks of another are needlessly exposed. Not outraged that their private predilections have been made our business, but “outraged” that someone could be such a deviant (all the while thinking ‘there but for the grace of god go I’…). It’s unnecessary, and this false outrage, not the sexual preferences of private individuals, is what is truly shameful.

Jeremy Scully, otherwise by all accounts a good person, simply fell in love with someone he shouldn’t have – certainly nothing to be proud of – and was murdered for it. Can we not mourn his loss? Can we not mourn the loss of a good teacher and coach, rather than shaming his memory by making his personal lifestyle the “story”? It seems not. Ask yourself this: if they were in a book club and she met Jeremy Scully there, would the headlines read “23-year prison term in Mount Vernon for reader”? The answer, of course, is no, and the same rules should have applied to the story as it stands. A sad story is made sadder because of it.

No all religion.  Not even any specific religion.  Maybe I should amend it to “sometimes the religious just piss me off”.  But I don’t feel like it.  Instead, I’ll just blatantly troll for readers with an inflammatory headline.  hee hee…such a heathen.

So for those of you who don’t already hate me, I’m an atheist.  It’s important to note that atheist means “without god” (not God – the word references any god, it’s neutral as to which one).  It does not mean “antagonistic to god”.  That’s a very important distinction to make – believers often assume that since I’m an atheist, that I “hate” god or am “opposed” to god – or even that I “refuse” to believe.  None of those things are true.  I’m not opposed, I don’t hate, nor do I refuse to believe in any particular god.  It just doesn’t make any sense to me.  A world without a god makes more sense.  To me.  This boggles believers, and that’s okay – I totally get that from that worldview, mine is confusing.  I don’t expect everyone to share my views; some folks are more agnostic on the whole thing, some folks just get more sense from a world with a god.  That’s cool.  But here’s where I get pissed…(okay, there are more, but this is today’s)

This sad story is about an idiotic douchebag whose girlfriend was either having an affair with, or just had a friendship that he didn’t approve of with, another man.  He saw a text from the guy, flipped out, and killed her.  Up to the killing her part, this happens all the time.  When arrested, he told the police that she had made a “Wiccan blood oath” to end the relationship.  Okay, so they’re Wiccan.  Whatever.  Ignoring the idea that this particular religion apparently had him believing that a “blood oath” could be sworn and met with death if broken (this is more a sign that he’s immensely stupid than that religion is evil), what got me is in the comments.  (Okay, no.  It does piss me off.  This evil prick tried to hide behind his particular religion to rationalize murdering his girlfriend.  Fucker.)

Here are the comments that led to today’s post:

Great_Teabagger 29p · 46 minutes ago

This is what happens when liberal religions induce folk to stray from the Cross.

Reply

al_wa 99p · 37 minutes ago

I am having trouble grasping that concept.
Definition of Liberal Religion
"What does it mean to be a religious liberal? To be a liberal according to my favorite scripture, Merriam-Webster, is be open minded, is to be free from the constraints of dogmatism and authority, is to be generous and to believe in the basic goodness of humankind. Religion is defined as that which binds us back or reconnects us to that which is ultimately important. Thus religious liberals are those that are connected, through generosity and openness, to the most important aspects of life."
–Rev. Kimi Riegel, Minister, Northwest UU Church, Southfield, MI

Reply

Great_Teabagger 29p · 18 minutes ago

Fancy talk, but the fact remains that the follower of this liberal-flavored religion dismembered a woman.
Witches, Wiccans, or however they choose to call themselves are bloodthirsty devil-worshippers and this grisly act proves it.

‘al_wa’ is engaging in the time-honored practice of answering religious insult with religious quote, which I think was unneccessary as it’s way off the point, but hey – it’s the internet, and people do it.  But ‘Great_Teabagger’ really captures the worst side of religion. And then prints it on a flag and waves it around.  The suggestion he makes here is that “the Cross”, obviously he means a specific brand of Christianity, is separate and apart from “liberal religions”.  And I think we can safely assume that all non-Christian religions will be lumped in that group.

This is lunacy.  The stupidity of reading the story of this woman’s death and jumping to “liberal religion” and implying that somehow being a Christian would’ve prevented this guy from doing this…it boggles the mind.  Focus, people.  Christianity is not the answer to the world’s evils.  This had nothing to do with “devil-worshippers” (wow, btw. The 16th century called, they miss you.  They want you to come home).  It’s about a crazy guy who did crazy shit.  And should be punished accordingly. 

You see, Wicca is the polar opposite of devil-worship – it’s about respect for the natural forces of the world.  It’s about not causing harm.  I don’t say this to refute Great_Teabagger – I say this to underscore how far from his religion this murderer strayed.  Had be been a Christian, he would’ve strayed just as far.  Religion simply is not a magical panacea that cures all ills. 

Religion has much to recommend it.  It gives some people hope.  It gives others answers to scary questions.  It gives some people a home, or a family, or peace.  But ultimately, religions are filled with people, and all religions recognize that people are flawed – and none claim to fix that.  They just give you a set of guidelines to strive for.  Too many believers fail to see this distinction, and think they’ve not just been absolved of their sins, but are magically prevented from committing (or at least being found out for) others.  No.  You are still, no matter how pious or genuinely righteous, responsible for you, until the day you die and go to find out if you or I were right all along.

Liberal religion didn’t lead this man to kill his girlfriend.  It can’t be blamed, and when he inevitably turns to “the Cross” in prison, it won’t change what he’s done.  He alone bears that responsibility.  Focus, people. 

Remember this?

Now, inevitably, we have this.

Actions, as Ken knows, have consequences.  Mt. Si High School should be ashamed for letting his bigoted nonsense cow them into allowing this kind of bullshit to breed and grow.  They had an opportunity for a teaching moment with their kids, and they blew it because they were afraid of a one-note preacher.  Losers.

Ken Hutcherson, pastor of the Antioch Church in Kirkland, WA, has extended the reach of his bizarre view of Christianity to World Net Daily with today’s article, titled Christians are the new Negro.  Setting aside his odd decision to use a term that he himself has said is offensive, it’s interesting that he’s chosen this view.

Pastor Ken hasn’t been shy about saying that those fighting for their civil rights shouldn’t compare themselves to the civil rights fight of our country’s African Americans – even writing an op-ed in the Seattle Times to that effect.  In that piece, he wrote:

The comparison of the plight of the gay community to slavery is a stretch; remember, gays were never called "three-fifths" human, according to the Constitution, and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to gain the same democratic rights as whites.

Now let’s see what he has to say today.

The reason is because there are undeniable similarities. Jim Crow laws were passed to keep me from having my constitutional rights and my rights under the Declaration of Independence of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Even though the Constitution gave me those freedoms, man was smart enough to be able to keep me from living those freedoms by saying I was "separate but equal."

Now, what “Jim Crow laws” are being passed to keep Christians from enjoying their constitutional rights?  His example is the Hate Crimes legislation, which provides for harsher penalties if it can be proved that a crime is committed for the sole reason of a person’s race, religion, or (this is the real problem for Ken) sexual preference.  So while gays can’t be the new Negro because they were never called “three-fifths” human (fair enough), Christians can be the new Negro because Congress thinks they shouldn’t commit crimes against gay people just because they’re gay.   Frankly, the logic here eludes me.  Does Ken wish us to follow Uganda’s lead and allow gays to be murdered for being gay?  Wait, don’t answer that…  So, what other examples does Ken have of his constitutional rights being denied?

Another way secular society is trying to control Christians is by the fallacy of the separation of church and state. That establishment clause was intended to protect the church from the state, not to keep the church from participating in the state. Christians’ ignorance of the meaning of the establishment clause has allowed us to be controlled just like the African Americans were in the 1950s and ’60s.

Okay.  This is an example of Christian historicity, where they’ve tried to change the history of the country to reflect a Christian identity.  More importantly, this is not actually a “way secular society is trying to control Christians”.  The reality is that the establishment clause was in fact a two-way barrier – to ensure the church was not involved in government, nor government in the church.  His view of this is simply a fallacy.  What else?

If you don’t believe one could be attacked for their stand on Judeo-Christian beliefs alone, take the case of Miss California, Carrie Prejean. Look at her refusal to compromise her Christian values. She has been vilified, demonized and lost her title simply because of her constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Hee-hee.  Yeah, her constitutional rights were definitely the problem there…not her refusal to attend events and honor her contract.  And definitely not her hypocrisy – I wonder what Christian values she was refusing to compromise when she made her jack-off video for her boyfriend? (btw, I don’t give a shit about her video…but it certainly shines a light on her “I am an agent of God” image)  Let’s keep digging!

I’m going to skip his defense of Sarah Palin, because let’s be real here – it ain’t her faith people are picking on, it’s her being stupid, vapid, an empty vessel, hypocritical, unqualified, a quitter…gosh, do I need to go on?  I’ll also skip his complaints of pastors in other countries being oppressed, since I hope I don’t have to explain that our constitutional rights don’t carry over to Norway’s citizens…in Norway.

(more…)

“Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? … Would we go with James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s?”

                                                                     -Barack Obama

This is one of the reasons I was behind Obama early.  He’s able to speak about religion, clearly, openly and directly, to people like me as well as to Christians and people of all other faiths, without dragging us down the rabbit-hole of choosing sides and deciding what God wants “us” to do or not do.  But James Dobson has a problem with this (and specifically, with this two-year old speech).

Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — passages like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, “a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application.”

Aside from MSNBC pussing out by saying “Obama said” Leviticus suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination (because, um, A: Obama didn’t just say it, he quoted it, and B: the bible doesn’t suggest it, it confirms it.  This “Obama said” thing is intended to keep MSNBC out of the debate and make it sound as though they’re just reporting on Obama’s “interpretation”.  Thanks, pussies!), I can’t wait to see what James has to say!

Dobson … accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament.

“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said.

“… He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”

As Obama said, is this traditional understanding of the Bible Dobson’s understanding, or Sharpton’s understanding? Because they ain’t the same thing.  James, you’re not the arbiter of tradition, as much as you’d like to think you are.  But hey, thanks for making Obama’s point for him!  There are many thousands of biblical literalists whose traditional understanding of the Bible does call for them to avoid shellfish and avoid touching anything a menstruating woman touches (read more about them in this great book).  Anyone who’s spent any time with Christians understands that they’re, um, human.  And being human, they are complex, and within even one congregation you will find many different “traditional” understandings of the Bible.  So Obama’s point stands.  Which would the government choose to teach in schools?

Continuing in his twisting of Obama’s speech (likely) or inability to comprehend it (also likely), Jimmy D says this:

Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the “lowest common denominator of morality,” labeling it “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”

“Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?” Dobson said. “What he’s trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.”

What is Dobson referring to here?

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God’s test of devotion.

But it’s fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.

Those are the words Obama spoke, and some of which Dobson will presumably replay in his 18 minute radio screed.  But Dobson is (probably knowingly) very wrong in his interpretation of these words.  Obama doesn’t say Dobson’s followers “have no right to fight for what we believe”…quite the opposite.  He’s saying they have to fight for what they believe through the democratic process – by convincing non-believers that the evangelist’s values and policies are right and good.  Is this not evangelism defined?  Is this not what Jesus himself calls on his followers to do?

And far from being a “fruitcake interpretation” of the Constitution, this is in fact a brilliant reading of it, and is a roadmap for Christians who seek wider political acceptance of their views.  And lest we think Obama’s just a big ol’ anti-religion, ‘keep God out of the public square’ liberal, let’s look at one more quote from that speech.

But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation – context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase “under God.” I didn’t. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs – targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers – that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.

I wonder, does Dobson think this is a “fruitcake interpretation” of the Constitution?  Perhaps he would do well not to argue the Constitution with a professor of Constitutional law…

Two stories catch my attention today. The first is a local story, about the Ferndale assistant track coach who went missing last week and was found, shot dead, on Tuesday. The other is the sad tale of the “D.C. Madam”, who was found hanged in a shed on her mother’s property this morning.

I’ll touch on Deborah Palfrey’s story first. At the link provided above, some commenters speculate that she was killed by the CIA or..well, someone, anyway, in an effort to keep her from spilling the names of clients, who we all know were well-connected political personalities and would, based on timing and the makeup of DC, be overwhelmingly Republican. I think it’s sad that the behavior of people in our federal government the last few years has devolved to the point that I can’t dismiss this as nonsense out of hand (although I do think it most likely that she offed herself). Where’s the VRWC when you need them? They’d be dead-set certain that she was killed and would spend years and hundreds of millions of dollars spreading the rumors!

But what’s really sad about this is that, in a way, our nation’s prudish attitudes towards sex and sexuality are what most likely led to her demise. Because we’re taught from an early age in this country that sex is a dirty thing, something to be hidden and be ashamed of (unless it’s between the Catholic-approved one-man-one-woman(tm)!), we’ve made laws accordingly. Prostitution is pushed into the shadows and viewed with a moue of disgust, and all parties are viewed as dirty, cheap, deserving of whatever they get. Meanwhile, the prostitution industry flies along with millions of customers, including our neighbors, friends, coworkers, and often religious leaders. And who gets arrested? Yes, the police sometimes put together stings to arrest johns, and humiliate them with billboards and cable-access shows advertising the names and faces of those shameful horny men willing to pay for sex. (Don’t get me started on this. How many men, with a wife who doesn’t want sex but understands their urges and supports their visits to a prostitute, have to deal with an unnecessary shame? Some folks are pervs. But some are just people who are looking for something they can’t get elsewhere, and shouldn’t have to be ashamed of it)

But the people who really pay are the women. Deborah Palfrey paid with her life for this enforced shame. Her employee Brandy Britton, too, took her life rather than face the “shame” of being put on trial and going to jail for the sin of receiving money in exchange for a service.

In a statement yesterday, Flohr said that Britton’s death “underscores an important question: Was the public benefited at all by the resources spent on her arrest and prosecution? As we ponder the apparent senselessness of her passing, we must openly wonder about . . . a criminal justice system that seeks to punish a person rather than heal them.”

The article that quote is from describes her “selling herself as a call girl” in an idealized neighborhood with moms in minivans and kids on scooters – because the children must always be brought into it, as though a sex worker is going to burst out of their home at any moment and start corrupting the children. The article does not paint a flattering picture of her. She was a mess. But let’s be clear – prostitution didn’t make her a mess, it was how she paid her bills BECAUSE she was a mess. Women have a right to be messed up and choose dangerous professions – just as much as male messes who choose to go work, say, on a fishing boat have a right to earn money and continue living.

Why were these women prosecuted? How many married (or unmarried!) couples engage in sexual negotiations every day – ‘Okay, I’ll do it, but I get to go out with my friends tomorrow night’? How is that different? It’s treating the body as a commodity, and if one chooses to do so, why is this society’s problem? By shaming, ridiculing and outlawing prostitution, we’ve forced it into the dark alleys and hourly motels where the women practicing their trade have no safety, no protection, and by their very surroundings are assured that they have no worth in society. Those who become what the media loves to call “High-priced call girls” are the lucky ones; at least there is a formal business structure to provide some form of protection.

Of course, in the best of circumstances, even legalized prostitution will always bear the risk and certainty of women being used by men who respect them not at all – but at least, like any clerk in any store, they would have the benefit of being out in the open and assured of protection, rather than persecution, by the police.

Perhaps you think I’m naive. Men suffer when they’re caught with prostitutes – look at Eliot Spitzer! Women are the losers here because they’re being used! It’s not their choice to be there! Maybe. Some women do find themselves forced into the sex trade – no doubt human trafficking is a huge problem. But would it exist if sex laws didn’t create a black market for at-risk women?

And what of David Vitter? Two women are dead now. Two women, an employee and the CEO of the escort company he admits having used, are now dead. Eliot Spitzer’s career does indeed lie in tatters (although not because he visited a prostitute; no, his career is dead because he was a hypocritical zealot who fell into a trap of his own making). Yet David Vitter continues to proudly represent Louisiana in the Senate. Did David Vitter pay to fuck Brandy Britton? Did he write a check or hand his credit card to an employee of Deborah Palfrey? We’ll probably never know on the first count, and we know the answer to the second question is absolutely yes. Yet he remains a Senator, while those two women are now dead and gone, and would be in jail if they weren’t. So who suffered here? And why?

I don’t care who Congressmen fuck, nor how, nor why they do so. As long as they stay off the children (Mark Foley, you reading this?), they have as much right to a sex life, however kinky, as anyone else. But without the bizarro obsession/repulsion our society has with sex and laws designed to be used against women who do what wives around the world do every day, we’d never have heard of either Brandy Britton or Deborah Palfrey. And these women would both be alive today.

Now, on to the Ferndale coach, Jeremy Scully. Since his body was found, the media has been working overtime to get information from the police about the case, and what did they find? That he’s a member on an “adult swinger site“. Naturally, they’ve found themselves unable to pursue any other angle, because OMG!! HE HAS TEH SEX!! SEX MAY HAVE CAUSE HIS DETH!1! Since police are looking at people he may have met on this website, it must be talked about in every story about him. What we have not heard from the media (until today) is what ELSE the police is looking into. What do you bet he was also a member of a site where people discuss fantasy football? Or politics? Would the media suppose the killer may come from those sites? What if he’s a member of Meetup.com? I mean, adults go there to meet online prior to meeting in realspace, right?

The prudery of our society leads to this salacious idea that someone trying to meet other people to have sex is somehow a sign of dangerous tendencies. Well, what are we doing when we go to a bar? When we introduce ourselves to an attractive stranger in the produce section? It’s no different.

Some people are interested in anal sex. Some like to be tied up and spanked. Or asphyxiated. Or dressed up in a diaper. This person, apparently, enjoyed sex outside the confines of his relationship (and with his girlfriend’s blessing). Maybe group sex, too, who knows? Some people enjoy that. Why should this fact be splashed across the news after his death? Why should it lead to immediate assumptions that whatever bad person killed him must be connected to this part of his life and not some other?

Because our society is afraid of our “private parts”. As a society, we’ve taught ourselves that sex is dirty instead of natural. Despite the fact that we all have sex, we all have kinks (whether large or small), we think the only other people having sex, especially kinky sex, must be dirty and bad. This fear poisons our thinking, and leads to the unnecessary distractions and posthumous shaming of a murdered man, and the unnecessary shaming of prostitutes, gays, masturbators…anyone who allows themselves to be sexual. This fear leads to talk of “lifestyles”, the suggestion that any non-hetero non-secret non-vanilla sex is the only thing that defines a person’s life, as though Jeremy Scully was helplessly fucking his way through the day and gay kids in Snoqualmie are storming the halls of their high school blowing football players.

Those people who like anal sex, group sex, being dressed up as cats or babies…their “lifestyle” involves going to work. Eating out with friends. Enjoying sports, or opera. Reading the paper. Cleaning the house. Skiing. Just the same lifestyle as the heterosexual-secret-vanilla sex loving populace. Sex is a private matter, and everyone has their own twist that is only relevant during the actual sex act. It ceases being relevant when your pants go back on.

So. The bottom line is, I’m sad for Jeremy Scully and his family. I’m sad that his life was lost. I’m sad that this was known to the police and the media on Sunday:

Documents from the Skagit County District Court show Jeremy Scully was on his
way to do roofing work at her and her husband’s home when he went missing last
week.
It was at their home Sunday that sheriff’s investigators executed a search warrant looking for clues in the murder of Jeremy Scully. Inside they recovered several weapons, ammunition, computers and some marijuana.

The day Scully was supposed to help, the man called his wife from Squires Lake trailhead asking her to come pick him up. That’s about a mile and a half down the road from where Scully’s car was later found abandoned.

When interviewed by police, the wife admitted she was having an affair with Jeremy Scully. As for her husband, during an interview he alluded to officers that Scully was dead.

I’m sad that the media knew this on Sunday, and on Tuesday elected to run with a story intended to titillate viewers, and designed to embarrass and shame his friends and family. Because you know what this sounds like? It sounds like he found someone who shared his desires, and that person’s husband objected. Sex is natural. So is hurt, and broken hearts, and anger. And sometimes those things lead to murder. That’s not a dirty sex thing – it’s a dishonesty thing.

Our society’s fear of sex has, unnecessarily, led to the death of two women and the shaming of a dead man. And for that, I am sad today.

This court rules that Ken Hutcherson is a douchebag and exhibit friggin’ A that anti-gay crusaders are motivated by sex, not God. 

Okay, got that off my chest.  Boy, I’m not even sure where to start with this.  So, this article reports on Ken Hutcherson’s planned “protest” at Mt. Si High School tomorrow during their GSA’s annual Day of Silence.  For those who don’t know, during the DoS, gay students and others remain silent all day to draw attention to the gay students that have to live in silence, hiding their sexuality to avoid abuse.  It’s not even a day calling for special access or rights they lack, just drawing attention to some basic dignity they feel entitled to.

But Ken…ol’ Ken, as always, can’t let any opportunity to get attention for himself AND attack gays pass by, and is supposedly bringing 1,000 of his “prayer warriors” to protest.  (I say supposedly, because he also has assured Microsoft that he was leading massive boycotts and bringing them down several times.  Last I checked, they’re still doing okay)  He’s bringing adults.  To protest.  High school kids.   He even ran an ad in the local paper saying straight people should “come out of the closet”, one of the more rancid things he’s said lately. 

Hutcherson said minority students aren’t treated with the same respect and sensitivity that is being shown gay students.

“There are so many issues at that school, and homosexuals get a whole day?” he asked.

Really, Ken?  Martin Luther King day doesn’t ring a bell?  Christmas?  It’s really that upsetting that a couple hundred kids will just be quiet for a day, that you need to bring “1,000″ people to fucking protest them?  Douche.  Of course, it isn’t that simple with Ken.  See, he had his feel-goods smushed last time he was there on Martin Luther King day and they pulled all the kids out of class for an assembly with him.  Seems some of the kids and a couple teachers weren’t so agreeable about a single-minded bigot coming to talk about equality, and let him know that. 

Mount Si principal Randy Taylor said Hutcherson’s planned protest is continuation of that controversy.

“It’s personal,” Taylor said. “We embarrassed him at the Martin Luther King assembly. It’s payback.”

Hutcherson countered, “Of course it’s personal. They embarrassed me and they embarrassed my daughter.“

There you have it, folks, the pastor at Antioch Bible Church.  Your religious leader, pulling you into his personal vendetta, because he was embarrassed and wants revenge.  Ask yourselves this:  Would Jesus hold grudges?  Would Jesus pursue revenge? 

Last month, the Times covered this when it first came up and Hutcherson’s brownshirts went to a school board meeting to complain about other people’s kids looking for a bit of tolerance.   As you’d expect, there are the conservative kids who assure us they were mistreated and made to feel badly because they didn’t “go along” with the DoS. 

Irony, thy name is youth.   

In an open letter to the school’s GSA, Garding and five other CoDE board members said the day coerces support and encourages hostility.

“Neutral students can’t opt out, and they can’t say they don’t like it,” the board members wrote. “Please choose to not spread anger this year and do not request the Day of Silence during the school day.”

Irony, thy name is also these douchebag parents.  Yes, let’s teach kids tolerance by asking them to stop seeking tolerance.  That’s not comically inept at all.

I love the kids complaining that education isn’t “taking place to its fullest extent” on this particular day.  (This, of course, appears in both articles.  Talking point, anyone?)  Riiight.  That’s your problem with it.  I assume these same kids oppose pep rallies, the day before winter break, and assemblies, right? 

But guys, here’s the clincher for me:

…Hutcherson, whose daughter attends the high school, has also denounced the school’s Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA), calling it a “sex club,” and urged parents and community members to oppose it and the Day of Silence.

I’ve said it a million times, the opposition people like Hutcherson have to homosexuals has nothing to do with religion or sin.  There is no such thing as a gay “lifestyle”.  It’s all about sex.  Sex, sex, sex.  To Ken, the mere existence of a GSA means kids are walking around sodomizing each other all day long, and the survival of civilization is threatened!  Oh my! 

Would someone please out this douche as a Haggard already, so we can stop hearing his nonsense? 

Returning to today’s article, which closes with my favorite quote: 

GSA adviser Kit McCormick said members will observe the day regardless of the protest going on outside.

“It’s enough of a tragedy that there are 1,000 grown-ups protesting kids who are asking for acceptance. We don’t need to say a thing.”

Goddamn right, Kit.  I’m with you.

by their hurting gays even in death.

How un-Christ-like is that? You find out that a valued employee and Navy veteran, whom you promised to the family to provide a memorial service for, is gay, and you cancel the memorial 24 hours before it is to happen?

The church’s pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, said no one knew Sinclair, who was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service, when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men “engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing.”

‘It’s not that we didn’t love the family’
Simons said the church believes homosexuality is a sin, and it would have appeared to endorse that lifestyle if the service had been held there.

Oh, fuck you, you sanctimonious cock. I’m so fucking sick of this “lifestyle” talk. This guy’s “lifestyle” involved showing up at Gary Simons’ church and doing his job, sharing time with his family, eating dinner, watching TV, you know…blasphemous stuff like that. The only time he strayed from behavior Gary Simons (unless he’s been Haggarded, too) shares is when he wanted to have private, consensual sex with his partner. Or, when, you know, he “engaged in clear affection, kissing and embracing”. The horror – expressing his love with his loved ones! Wouldn’t want to “endorse” that, would we?

1 John 1:5 – 2:12

And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoso keepeth his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected. Hereby we know that we are in him: he that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as he walked. Beloved, no new commandment write I unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning: the old commandment is the word which ye heard. Again, a new commandment write I unto you, which thing is true in him and in you; because the darkness is passing away, and the true light already shineth. He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother, is in the darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in the darkness, and walketh in the darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes.

The point to John’s words in this context is that the followers of Jesus should walk as he walked – Jesus loved, served, and spent time in the company of all manner of sinner. It’s also that if you claim to love Jesus, but hate your brother (and we are all brothers as we are all children of God), you’ve left the light of the lord. This is the book you believe in, you follow it or you don’t. This “endorse the lifestyle” nonsense is unchristian, unbiblical, and is pure nonsense to provide cover for bigotry, fear and hatred.

And Gary Rivers can claim all he wants that he “loves the family” or this isn’t about hate, but refusing a man’s memorial in his death is a hateful act. I can 100% guarantee you if a murderer or rapist dies and their family wants a memorial service at this church, they’ll get it. So fuck you and your sanctimonious, unchristian refusal to provide this man one last dignity as he leaves this earth.

There’s a problem with these morons and their ‘argument’. For background, their argument:

“It’s all about when people think life begins and there’s people on both sides of that fence and it’s a very controversial issue, but we feel we need to take a position based up our beliefs,” said Kevin Stormans, pharmacy owner, in June of 2006.

And

“Everybody draws their own lines,” [Jim] Ramseth said. “And if a person’s purpose is to kill a fertilized egg, then I disagree with that. Regardless of where the practitioner draws that line, they should have the right.”

Finally,

…many of Ramseth’s colleagues agree that they should not be forced to provide medication with which they have moral or ethical objections.

But here’s the problem. It isn’t a moral or ethical question. It’s a question of a pharmacist’s right to be willfully ignorant of the science of a drug. The answer is, such a right doesn’t exist.

Find a company that will allow you to shirk, entirely, part of your job duties because of moral or ethical objections. Go ahead, let me know what company this is. Such a thing doesn’t exist – you do what your job calls for, or you find a new line of work. Being Christian, or ignorant, or Christian and ignorant, is not an excuse for not doing your job. As pharmacists, their job is to dispense legal medicines legally prescribed. Their job is to educate patients as to the procedures to follow for taking the drug, how to be safe, and any side effects. Their job is not to decide for a patient whether or not they can take a drug.

Plan B is the most egregious case, by far. The only opposition to this comes from those who consider it an “abortion pill”. The science is there – Plan B does not cause abortions. It has no effect on a fertilized egg. What it does is prevent fertilization of the egg, thereby preventing the need for an abortion, birth, adoption or any other such decision. The belief that Plan B is an “abortion pill” is borne entirely of ignorance – not just run-of-the-mill ignorance, either, but willful ignorance.

If a pharmacist is allowing themselves to be convinced, by some dogma or charlatan with a political ax to grind, that the science is wrong, well…they have no business being around drugs, much less dispensing them. This has gone on long enough – it’s irresponsible, and frankly if they can be this offbase about one drug, they’re capable of being offbase about any drug. They’re dangerous and a menace to public health. In this blogger’s opinion, it’s time for the state to start pulling licenses – you don’t accurately understand what the drugs do, you don’t get to keep your pharmacist’s license.