Saturday, December 13, 2008

The War on Christmas: Schizophrenic Time Travelling Edition.

Well, I was just strollin' around the internet, when all of sudden a link came up in a Pharyngula comment thread to an article in the Canada Free Press website. You may have heard of one of its writers. So, I step through the link and "OH MY GOD IT'S IN ENGLISH BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE FUCKING SENSE!!!".

For example, one wonders if it is worth it upon hearing that another whacked-out liberal judge has determined that the nativity scene is unconstitutional.

Not just insensitive to non-Christians, mind you, but unconstitutional for heaven’s sake!

Establishment. Clause. Bitch.
Not so many years ago, the word unconstitutional was reserved for major injustices that really harmed people. Heinous acts like slavery or racial discrimination for example.
Pop quiz: what does "constitutional" mean, what does the prefix "un-" commonly denote, and how in the name of holy hell can you interpret the term "unconstitutional" as anything but "not constitutional", as in "not in, not supported by, or actively prevented by provisions in the constitution"? There is nothing about "really harming people", because fairness isn't always as black and white as opposing slavery and ghettoes.

Last year, we heard of a rabbi in Washington state who threatened to sue because of fifteen Christmas trees enjoyed by the overwhelming majority of the public at the Seattle airport. “Treeless in Seattle,” was apparently this rabbi’s passion.

But why would an alleged “man of faith” act to deny so many people the pleasure of seeing a simple, unobtrusive symbol just because the symbol did not immediately conjure up images of his particular faith?

As secular as Christmas trees are, I think that if there are displays for a religious holiday put up in a state owned facility, that he has a right to petition for in the inclusion of displays for his own holiday, or protest the exclusion of himself and others. Whether or not a lot of people enjoyed does not make it less exclusionary. That being said, they were only Christmas trees, which means that, since Christmas is also a state holiday, it isn't really endorsing a religion ( would be a hell of a lot easier if they didn't make the thing a federal holiday to begin with. But I guess they need to, in order to deal with the fact that 80% of the population is going to celebrate it anyway).

How does one confront such narrow-minded, selfish, mean spirited thinking without going barking mad?

Says the member of the group that sets up a display for their own holiday of choice, and says that they are beyond reproach because more than 50% of people like it up, without considering (or even concerning yourself with) the fact that you might be marginalizing people who do not. That's far more mean spirited to me, because the absence of any display is in no ways a tacit sign of disparagement. Note: This is where the "satire" is supposed to begin.
One way is to fantasize what the first Christmas might have been like if liberals and the ACLU had been in charge the night Jesus was born....

Upon entering Bethlehem, Mary and Joseph would have been stopped by activists from Planned Parenthood. The unmarried couple would have been reminded of the growing problem with overpopulation, including demands on finite resources and added pollution.

Mary would have been encouraged to abort the unborn fetus, and Planned Parenthood would have offered to pay for the procedure with tax money stolen from the Romans.

[The "First Christmas" wouldn't have been on Christmas day, just in case that needed to be mentioned]. Planned Parenthood people do not solicit people into aborting. And what does Planned Parenthood have to do with the ACLU? Oh my...I think you all can see what kind of piece this is already.
Meanwhile, a corrupt liberal judge (aren’t they all?)
Only if you consider "corrupt" to mean "makes rulings that are in conflict with religious and/or political ideology", then yes. Every single one of them. Because the ones who aren't will be deemed "conservative enough".
in Nazareth would have issued a restraining order to prevent the three wise men from entering the city where the Savior was born.
Probably a good idea. Three rich guys who have no relation to the baby nor the parents, coming with gifts to see a newborn? It just screams "sex slavery".
Citing the lack of any women, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, gays, transsexuals, Jihadists, or blind and handicapped Buddhists among the three wise acres, the judge would have given the trio twelve hours to submit an acceptable affirmative action plan, or be forced to leave the Holy land.
Why do I get the feeling that he has a severe disdain, not just for the perceived inanity of affirmative action (which, in this case, is a strawman for comedic effect, based on a strawman that they actually hold as fact) but for the minorities involved as well? Once you get to about "Hispanics" and ignore the last one on the last (Buddhists), you've enterred the "social conservative's hitlist" (so to speak). With, of course, women and blacks having just recently been taken off (most) of those lists, and Asians having a few surprises ahead undoubtedly.
All mirth, gold and other gifts brought by the trio would have been impounded and stored in a local “Babies R Us” retail outlet, pending final disposition by the court
.I'm surprised you didn't throw in a joke griping about inspection and regulation of goods.
That same judge would have also ordered Mary to submit to a full gynecological examination by a licensed physician to determine the veracity of her claim to be a virgin.
I'm sure you would've just taken her word for it. Especially if you were Joseph...
Hell, you would probably just claim that after the claim was denied by a physician, or by the guy who impregnated her even, that they were biased and in a conspiracy to hide the TRUTH that is your wife's virginity (you, know despite the fact that the Bible didn't actually ever make that claim, and it was a mistranslation....*cough*).
The judge would have ruled that this was essential to maintain the probative integrity of Nazareth’s birth and death records, and to establish a basis for royalty payments owed Nazareth when the Jesus story was added to the Holy Bible
Hilarious! Except...that the Romans did have birth and death records...[well, Jesus didn't, but he should have]. The royalty payments though....that's funny! They knew they were going to write the Bible from the time of his birth. Heh...the implications....
ACLU Lawyers in Bethlehem would have sued the innkeeper who turned Mary and Joseph away. The suit would allege that there was, in fact, plenty of room at the inn, but that Mary was discriminated against solely because she was an unmarried, pregnant, middle-eastern woman of color who spoke perfect Yiddish, but not a word of Italian or French.
So? Good on the ACLU! You should show them more appreciation, having fought on behalf of the mother of god and all that.
Even back then, being bilingual was seen as a mark of sophistication and economic stability by liberal nut cases.
And being incapable of communicating with anyone outside of your own country, while still insisting on the necessity of travelling abroad to places that you never even bothered to locate on a map? I mean, seriously, you are attacking people who appreciate bilingualism in the country that probably is the most monolingual in the world. You couldn't have pointed yourself out as a contributing factor to a major educational problem more clearly if you tried!
Joseph would have been required to pay a special “Ass Transit Fee”—not a tax, mind you—owing to the fact that the donkey carrying the blessed Mary was not properly licensed in Bethlehem. The local tax collector was known in the underground as the “Ass Taxer,” a term that still applies to most American Democrats.
Tax jokes. Wow. Tell the joke about W4 forms next! [BTW: "Ass Taxer" sounds like either an As Seen On TV product that makes filing taxes easy by letting you get through them just by sitting down on it (how? I don't know.). Or, a name for a gay accountant porn].

Joseph and Mary would have been forced to leave Bethlehem earlier than originally planned, because a local bureaucrat named Goreish had determined that their donkey was releasing unhealthy levels of toxic gases, indelicately called “farts” in our enlightened times.

Man. You really want to live in the Bronze Age, don't you? Anyway, those stupid liberals and there controlling the levels of air pollution! I hatez them! HATEZ DEM!!!
Such emissions were thought to be a major factor in clinical depressions, and were also implicated in a phenomenon called “Global Cooling,” which Goreish insisted would destroy the planet by the year 0010 unless immediate action were taken.
Foolish Gore-sounding name. He should have known that the world wasn't going to end until the year 0040, when Jesus came back on a fiery chariot to bring all of his faithful disciples up to heaven, and let the wretched unbelievers fend for themselves against the demonic hordes. Foolish, foolish fool.
Goreish was so convinced of his science that he mass produced a scroll manuscript modestly titled, “Ten Inconvenient Truths about Global Cooling,” which were sold on street corners for thirty pieces of silver, with tips gladly accepted.
OMG! 30 pieces of silver! Gore-guy is Judas!
Sadly, Goreish died penniless and humiliated in 0100 while trying to promote yet another doomsday rip off called “Global Warming.” The animal rights activist presiding over the funeral for Goreish called him a huge and noble force for peace
He lived a damn full life though. Lived to be over a 100 unless he was in charge of controlling levels of toxic emissions when he was younger than the baby Jesus. And the irony of mentioning a "doomsday rip off" around 100 C.E. (ya know, when the heavily "apocalypse soon" influenced Christian cults started to gain momentum), as always, is lost.
Because of scribing and typographical errors repeated over the course of 2,000 years, “noble force for peace” has become “Nobel Peace,” an award recently accepted by the latest rip-off artist in the Goreish family tree.
So, denouncing the Nobel Peace Prize and Global Warming at the same time? What objections do you have exactly to these things, that makes them warrant mockery and dismissal without so much as a wink and a nudge to give a signal as to why? And what does this have to do with the ACLU?
Finally, a band of homeless Islamofascist gypsies would have been arrested for conspiring to destroy the Baby Jesus by placing a Muslim baby with a treatable, but contagious, disease into the manger immediately next to that of Jesus.
[Of course, Islam didn't exist then, but it would be odd to bring that up now after so many deliberately anachronistic claims have been made]. Wouldn't that be a good thing? I thought that super magic non-zombie form white Jesus was supposed to die in order to release the gamma radiation inside of his blood in order to remove the evil body Thetans from all of us and free us from the tyranny of being judged by himself? Awww, screw it. Why would I expect your religion to make more sense than your politics?
This was the first recorded instance of Muslims using children on suicide missions to kill innocent Jews.
And yet the Christians still beat them to the punch at a successful attempt to kill innocent Jews. And they held a good lead for probably a millenium or so. Oh, but you had less suicide missions, and don't use children in warfare (anymore). There there.
Of course, the arrested Islamofascists eventually sued for discrimination based on religious intolerance. And won!
Ha. Nice one. I am sure that there has never been a legitimate case of religious tolerance, nor has anyone ever unfairly discriminated against Muslims that were mistakenly deemed to be Islamofascists by you and those with mindsets similar to your own. They're all malicious terrorists who are treated fairly by everyone.
Praise be to God that liberalism and the ACLU did not exist in their present form on Christmas Eve, 0000!
Why? Aside from there being a lot of bureaucracy (a bipartisan problem, by the way), nothing bad actually happened due to the "ACLU" existing in your bizarre hypothetical world. Odd. You can't even distort a fictional reality enough to make a convincing case. I guess I shouldn't be surprised though; your religion's the same way. ;)


Richelle said...

aww, that was cute... and pathetic.

i wasn't aware of planned parenthood chasing around pregnant women in an attempt to make them abort their babies. but what the hell do i know? after all, i was an unmarried pregnant teen girl 5 years ago. never solicited for abortion... odd.

i just love how none of this hypothetical story makes any sense. like the 3 wise men thing. why in the hell would a restraining order be placed on them? what does that have to do with anything liberals supposedly do nowadays?

i know, why don't we do the hypothetical story for today's social conservatives and the birth of heyzues? i doubt they would have strolled into town to open loving arms. mary would have been called a whore and sinner and what not. and they would have tried to have them deported before mary popped thus making her child a legal citizen.

now isn't that ironic?

the very people who embrace the ideology which mutated from the teachings of this supposedly divine man would have shunned and scorned his own mother.

oh it tickles me.

Stacy said...

Could it be Poe??

(It is categorized as "satire" at the top. And it says the author is a recovering liberal since 1992 who lives in San Francisco)

Asylum Seeker said...

"Could it be Poe??"

That was my worst fear coming into it. But, I've seen serious articles on that site that are worse, and it is supposedly a strictly conservative website (according to both wikipedia and the website itself), so I don't think he's pulling a meta-satire here. But, if he is: bravo.

"why in the hell would a restraining order be placed on them?"

Because...affirmative action (?). I don't know. I was not aware that restraining orders were the sole province of activist liberals anyway. Does this mean that stalking is a conservative value?

"i know, why don't we do the hypothetical story for today's social conservatives and the birth of heyzues?"

Because it would be too short. It would be them wetting themselves with joy when he was born, killing him prematurely when he starts preaching about peace, and using that as a justification to start punching out some Jews. (Who they will later reconcile with 2000 years later in order to make sure that Israel is around to fulfill end times prophecies). The end.

"mary would have been called a whore and sinner and what not. and they would have tried to have them deported before mary popped thus making her child a legal citizen."

Ahahahaha. That didn't occur to me, but I can definitely see that! But that's not even the tip of the iceberg when you consider that Jesus would have been dark-skinned (well, comparative to how we typically portray him) and Middle Eastern, and how the religious right formerly despised anyone in the first category, and presently hate anyone who falls into the second category. But don't tell them this. Reality makes them cry.

Asylum Seeker said...

Here's another example of his "satire":

"Raging Constitutional Debate: Can Obama Pardon Himself?
Satire by John W. Lillpop

From the Washington Times, yet another nasty example of corruption from Illinois:

”A former Illinois bank official, now claiming whistleblower status, says bank officials replaced a loan reappraisal that he prepared for a Chicago property that was purchased by the wife of now-convicted felon Tony Rezko, part of which was later sold to next-door neighbor Barack Obama."

Obama's relationships with thugs like terrorist Bill Ayers, incarcerated Governor Rod R. Blagojevich, and convicted felon Tony Rezko have been known for a while, but largely ignored by the mainstream media and leftists mesmerized by the word "change."

As of today, Obama legal advisers are in a mad scramble to determine a major constitutional question: Assuming that he can avoid arrest between now and January 20, will Barack Obama, once he is sworn in as 44th president, be entitled to issue himself a full and unconditional pardon for all misdemeanors and felonies, including the big lie about U.S. citizenship?

For the full story of the latest Rezko-Obama mess, visit the link below:"

If he is satirizing Republicans a la Colbert...he truly sucks at it. (Then again, I honestly think that that is more likely, because this cannot be deemed to be satire at all unless you look at it like he is satirizing conservative satirists. A single joke does not a satire make).

Asylum Seeker said...

Oh, God dammit! This one is worse. Remember D'Souza's posts in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre?

Well, Lillpop may be even more ghoulish.

pboyfloyd said...

The local newspaper, a few years ago, had, on the FRONT PAGE(in a sidebar) "proof" of Christ's birth by a Roman writer!

I remember the first part of the letter(to the editor) that I wrote.

"I am writing this in crayon because I was SO excited to read the 'proof' that Christianity was correct.."

They didn't print the letter. Instead they printed a piece on 'how they couldn't manage to print everyone's letters!'!

Asylum Seeker said...

"I am writing this in crayon because I was SO excited to read the 'proof' that Christianity was correct.."

Hahahaha. I can only imagine where that led to!

"They didn't print the letter. Instead they printed a piece on 'how they couldn't manage to print everyone's letters!'!"

Maybe you weren't alone? Or it was a pathetic dodge. I am pretty sure that most newspapers make it their policy to not print every letter to the editor they get (presumably only favoring those they agree with on some level). Be it due to limited space, or just being unwilling to publish a letter that will lead to a newspaper equivalent of a flame war.