Nicki Minaj, fresh off looking like a fool with Madonna at the Super Bowl, showed up last night on the red carpet at the Grammys with a guy dressed like the pope. This was just a prelude of what was to come.
Minaj's performance began on stage with a mock confessional skit. This was followed by a taped video depicting a mock exorcism. With stained glass in the background, she appeared on stage again with choir boys and monks dancing.
Perhaps the most vulgar part was the sexual statement that showed a scantily clad female dancer stretching backwards while an altar boy knelt between her legs in prayer. Finally, "Come All Ye Faithful" was sung while a man posing as a bishop walked on stage; Minaj was shown levitating.
None of this was by accident, and all of it was approved by The Recording Academy, which puts on the Grammys. Whether Minaj is possessed is surely an open question, but what is not in doubt is the irresponsibility of The Recording Academy. Never would they allow an artist to insult Judaism or Islam.
It's bad enough that Catholics have to fight for their rights vis-à-vis a hostile administration in Washington without also having to fend off attacks in the entertainment industry. The net effect, however, will only embolden Catholics, as well as their friends in other faith communities.
Thom Hartmann interviewed Maggie Gallagher last week on his show 'The Big Picture.' It's unfortunate that the interview has not been seen by more people.
Maggie Gallagher is the founding president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). While NOM has, on one hand, been designated as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the group is a powerful anti-equality force. NOM has been instrumental in several anti-equality initiatives across the US, including Prop 8, New York same-sex marriage opposition, and the 2012 presidential marriage pledge signed by Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty.
In the below interview, Hartmann eloquently dismantles Gallagher's case against same-sex marriage. What we learn in the process is that: A) there is no valid secular case against same-sex marriage, and B) there is no valid Biblical case against same sex marriage, unless we're also to follow all the other kooky legal advice from Biblical times. (It goes without saying that legislation must have a secular basis, but we can't ignore the religious arguments in this debate.)
We also see in the interview exactly what we're up against in the equality debate here in America. It is this nebulous, but powerful mix of fear, self-righteousness, religious bigotry, and ignorance (and boat-loads of money) that is driving the anti-equality debate. As Hartmann suggests, this vehement anti-equality sentiment is more fringe than it is mainstream.
What is dangerous is when the mainstream is inundated with damaging and inflammatory myths repeated ad nauseam by the likes of Maggie Gallagher.
Perhaps, as Hartmann suggests, we really should look to the Bible for guidance. Hartmann then introduces a segment by Betty Bowers, "America's Best Christian."
If only we could have had a camera on Gallagher's face at this point in the program.
Seriously, someone please have a discussion with Rick Santorum about self-awareness.
Speaking today at CPAC, Santorum actually said this (referring to the Obama contraception flap):
"It's not about contraception. It's about economic liberty, its about freedom of speech its about freedom of religion, its about government control of your lives and its gotta stop!"
For real. He said that.
The same Santorum who said he would invalidate all gay marriages.
The same Santorum who said that the right to privacy as it relates to having consensual sex with another adult in one's own home "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution."
The same Santorum who said about contraception, "It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
The same Santorum who said he would "advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so."
The same Santorum who said this:
"They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.
That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."
This may be shocking to many -- mostly to those who do not own a penis.
I heard this statistic yesterday. Perhaps it wasn't a coincidence that this statistic was circulating on twitter the same day that contraception regulations were being debated across the internet, and on every cable news show in existence.
If we must truly cater to the whims of the Catholic church, perhaps we need to tackle this problem of erections.
By Catholic standards, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil.
In other words, God created sex solely for the purpose of reproduction.
Which begs the question: Why did God create the erection? Certainly not for urinating, which is the only other Catholic-sanctioned use of the penis.
If we are to believe that God created sex solely for the purpose of procreation, we must also believe that the erection is intended solely for the purpose of sexual intercourse.
If the average man gets 11 erections each day (and several more at night), and if the human body, and all of its intricate functions, were designed by God, then certainly these erections have a special purpose.
If the average man gets a dozen or so erections a day, and he does not engage in the act of sex for the purpose of reproduction, then, each time, he is using his erection "contrary to its purpose," to borrow a phrase from the Catechism.
Perhaps Rick Santorum said it best when he said, "It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
If we are to accept the Catholic Church's logic, we must accept that an erection that is not being used for the purpose of procreation is nothing more than "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
It's a matter of time, folks. Rick Santorum said same-sex marriage would lead to "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." By the same logic, we should assume that the Catholic church, and conservative theocrats like Rick Santorum, are not going to stop at contraception. They're coming after our boners.
America, we need to stand firm. Tell the Catholic Church to keep their hands off our erections.
A press release from yesterday announced Santorum was "the first and only candidate to sign the Presidential Pledge for Religious Freedom."
If you've been following Rick Santorum for any amount of time, you might be wondering if the man is completely devoid of any self-awareness.
Certainly Rick Santorum does not mean the freedom to wear a condom while having sex:
"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
Certainly he can't mean the freedom to have consensual sex with another adult in the privacy of your own home:
And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution."
And he can't mean the freedom for a doctor to practice his or her profession:
“I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion, I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so.”
Clearly, he doesn't mean the freedom to be brown in an airport:
"Obviously, Muslims would be someone you'd look at [in airport profiling]."
The freedom to stay married to the person you legally married? Nah.
When asked if he would make same-sex couples get divorced, Santorum responded, "Well their marriage would be invalid."
The freedom to not have religion shoved down your child's throat in public schools? Nope.
"It's very interesting that you have a situation where science will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-Creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that's scientific. Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain all these things. And if it does point to that, then why don't you pursue that? But you can't, because it's not science, but if science is pointing you there how can you say it's not science? It's worth the debate."
The freedom to terminate a pregnancy under the care of a licensed doctor? Of course not. Santorum pines for the good ol' days of back alley abortions:
Look at what’s happened just in our tolerance for abortion. Fifty years ago…60 years ago, people who did abortions were in the shadows, people who were considered really bad doctors. Now, abortion is something to that is just accepted. [...] This is the erosion. And it happens in the medical profession. It happened very fast.
I'm really curious about the freedoms Rick Santorum believes he represents. It sure sounds like he wants nothing more than to establish a Christian Taliban.
Body parts like tonsils and the appendix were once considered unnecessary organs left over from evolution. But scientists have discovered that these “unnecessary” organs are actually very useful.
The video states that scientists now know that the appendix is useful to our immune system, and that the gall bladder is now known to be useful for digesting fats.
With this information, the video draws the following conclusion:
"God doesn't create junk. When he made Adam and Eve, he declared them...very good! Their sin against god started the process of sickness, decay, and death even after God's judgment upon creation, he activated intricately designed backup systems, like the immune system, so that Adam and Eve, and all their descendants could survive after the fall."
I believe that by "facts," they mean "myths."
While their remarks on the appendix and the gall bladder are partly true, they leave out a lot of important information (this seems to happen a lot with creationist propaganda).
For instance, if a supreme being had designed the appendix as part of a human (a human which was designed and created in its current form), then the appendix would be kind of like the Ford Pinto's exploding gas tank. (OK, that's a bad example, you actually need a gas tank to operate a car, but you get the idea) Yes, the appendix may provide some minor functions in modern times, but it might also kill you. Brandon Miller wrote in LiveScience: "In 2000, in fact, there were nearly 300,000 appendectomies performed in the United States, and 371 deaths from appendicitis. Any secondary function that the appendix might perform certainly is not missed in those who had it removed before it might have ruptured."
(Side bar: we have to stop looking at biological traits and features as having "purposes." A chameleon's camouflage mechanism doesn't have a "purpose" (i.e. hiding from prey), it is simply a mechanism that evolved because the chameleons who were less capable of camouflaging themselves died before they could reproduce.)
Regarding the coccyx, I'm not sure the Institute for Creation Research has a true understanding of atavism. Humans occasionally are born with tails.
If a designer were hired to create efficient organisms, she would certainly be sent back to the drawing board for many of these useless and extraneous features. She certainly wouldn't be receiving praise for efficiency or conservation of building materials.
The kind of silliness we see in these Institution for Creation Studies videos are straight from the creationist propaganda playbook. The willful ignorance is astounding.
These organizations are so fixated on the mission of proving the Bible's inerrancy, that they are willing to completely ignore all evidence except for the few pieces of evidence that work in their favor. If they can blind their captive audience with just a little science, then they believe they have done enough and can then swoop in with their message of hope and salvation.
"Those silly evolutionists say X is true! But what about Y and Z? Wait! Look over there, it's Jesus and heaven and salvation forever! Amen!"
It's the same approach every single time.
Watch for yourself. Watch them all. Or save yourself the headache.
Today, AFA spokesman and all-around horrible person, Bryan Fischer, had Dr. Georgia Purdom on his show.
For those unfamiliar with Dr. Purdom, she is one of the actual scientists employed by the Creation Museum. In other words, she is a scientist who has found a way to completely ignore science in order to indoctrinate children with the idea that the earth is only several thousand years old, and that God created humans in their present form.
As I've mentioned before in these pages, evolution deniers like Bryan Fischer, Ray Comfort, and the crew at Answers in Genesis love to play the Hitler card in their attacks on evolution.
Take Fischer and Purdom from today's Focal Point (video segment is below)
FISCHER: So it seems like you could draw a straight line between Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, the eugenics movement, and Adolph Hitler. You have an unbroken line from the theory of evolution to Hitler's Germany. Is that an over-exaggeration?
I guess the idea is that if they keep repeating over and over that "evolution = Hitler," the poor souls who pay attention to these loons (over 200 radio stations and over 1 million visitors to the Creation Museum) will simply say, "Welp, Hitler was evil, so evolution has to be a lie!"
Here's the thing:
Evolution doesn't care. Evolution happens, has happened, and will happen, regardless of who embraces it, or who mirrors its mechanisms for whatever nefarious purpose.
It doesn't matter if Mother Theresa, Pope Benedict, or Adolf Hitler embraced the theory of evolution. It doesn't change anything. Because change is always occurring, and it doesn't give a shit about you, politics, religion, or Bryan Fischer.
Next thing you know, Fischer and Purdom will be bad-mouthing Sir Isaac Newton and his theory of gravitation because of the millions who have died by falling.
