I see the unseen, unchanging
Invisible you
Shining eternal.
Such celestial gifts impart a heavy price —
I’m perpetually reminded that one day
I will steal my last kiss while you sleep,
I will fold your nightgown one last time,
And I will whisper one final ‘I love you’
Before the veil is lifted.
I will carry you to bed
And I will wash your feet
When the seasons have humbled your bones,
But no amount of time
Can prepare me for your passing.
I’m not a selfish spirit — God knows
I’m aware of what is rightfully His.
Regardless, I cannot help but pray
That when you shed your earthly self
He’ll call me soon thereafter.
Under normal circumstances I would never write about Cenk Uygur of “The Young Turks.” However, it turns out that he named his son “Prometheus Maximus” as a metaphorical middle finger to the God he … doesn’t believe in. While years from now people will make the mistake of thinking his son was named after the Simpsons episode where Homer goes by Max Power, I still wanted to hear Mr. Uygur’s reasoning.
Host: For the first question … How did you come up with the awesome name for your son? I wouldn’t have thought of that in a million years. Go!
Cenk Uygur: All right. My son’s name is Prometheus Maximus. Prometheus is my favorite mythical character of all time ’cause he had the nerve, the courage to challenge the gods to say ‘I’m going to help humanity.’ It’s the kind of thing the rest of mythology is set up to hate. … No, bow your head. Bow your head to God … In all religions, Christianity, it said bow your head to God, listen to whatever he says, do not challenge him, even if, for example, he slaughters everyone on earth as he did, you know, doing that that little fun thing called the flood with Noah’s Ark. Literally almost everyone but Noah’s family was killed. Support. Bow your head and support. No. Prometheus said I’m not going to bow my head. I’m going to take fire and give it to humans. Lovely.
Before we begin exposing Mr. Uygur’s confusion, we must first point out how sad it is that he has to crib Bill Maher’s old jokes, in which the Real Time host called the God … he doesn’t believe in … a “psychotic mass murderer” for bringing forth the flood. If this is some sort of new talking point among liberal atheist pundits, then we might as well address it now.
As Whittaker Chambers eloquently put it long ago, “Between man’s purposes in time and God’s purpose in eternity, there is an infinite qualitative difference.” That Mr. Uygur thinks his tiny insignificant mind could wrap itself around the purpose in eternity that God’s actions serve is quite hilarious. Consider this: A man who struggles to understand basic economics actually believes he could comprehend the actions of a being with the power to bring space and time into existence.
God’s role as the Creator also poses another conundrum: Whose life is it? Is it yours, or is it God’s? The Christian would say that his existence belongs to the one who breaths life into him every second of every day — God. Since life is only sustained by God, getting upset at Him for ending it makes no sense. Raising a fist in anger and shaking it at God for those who died in the flood assumes that the lives lost actually belonged to the departed. They did not. Mr. Uygur doesn’t understand that the body he has is essentially a rental home that houses his spirit for a short time before it returns to its Father.
And finally, while the young Turk may pride himself on his literary knowledge, it is quite apparent that he hasn’t read up on Dante.
In Canto XX of “The Inferno,” Dante weeps for those in hell and is instantly rebuked by his guide Virgil:
Truly I wept, leaning upon a peak
Of the hard crag, so that my Escort said To me: “Art thou, too, of the other fools? Here pity lives when it is wholly dead; Who is a greater reprobate than he Who feels compassion at the doom divine?”
God is certainly capable of separating the wheat from the chaff, and yet Mr. Uygur laments the “slaughter” of those in the flood. Those who wind up in hell do so because that is the choice they made with the free will they were given. Trying to elicit sympathy for those who made the conscious decision to reject God does not work with those who know Him.
Jesus says in John 10: 14-16:
I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
He also says in John 13: 12-17 after washing Peter’s feet:
Do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.
That is a God who is worthy of endless bows. That is a God to listen to and obey. If the world wants to mock His followers as “sheep,” then it is a pejorative worth embracing because He truly is a “good shepherd.”
The funny thing is that despite Mr. Uygur’s efforts to deny his spirit, he can not rid himself of the tinctures of truth that flow through his mind:
Host: Do you believe in ghosts/paranormal activity?
Cenk Uygur: No, because I’m a rational human being. But not quite as rational as I make out. I will confess to two things: One is I know it’s not right, but from time to time I think I’ll look at signs or something and think, “Oh, is that a message?” And I’m like, ‘ Knuckle head, of course it’s not a message!’ … The second thing is one I’m perfectly proud of: I keep an open mind, meaning I haven’t foreclosed on the idea that there might be things that happen on this planet and in this universe that we haven’t yet figured out.
It is incredibly difficult to ignore the stinging slap of synchronicity, and yet the man deludes himself into thinking otherwise with each message that comes his way. He says he has an open mind while slamming it shut. He believes that with enough time humans can “figure out” the totality of the universe, when the person who truly possesses an open mind understands that perhaps reality exists in ways our five senses are incapable of detecting.
In a world of sentient AM radios, many of them would call frequency modulation a myth. Some of them would even name their AM radio kids “Prometheus.” Luckily, there is always hope that those who deny the truth today will accept it before it’s too late.
Here is what a troll looks like on the back end of WordPress. I erased part of his IP address because I’m a nice guy. I also erased part of the link he wanted to share. Sad. I was hoping Mr. Uygur’s Reddit fanboys would bring more to the table than “myballsinyourmouth.” I guess not.
Burger King recently started a limited-market promotion of the Proud Whopper, which included the underlying message “We’re all the same inside.” It was supposed to be a show of support for San Francisco’s gay community, but it could also serve as Burger King’s stealth pro-life campaign. Since Burger King employee Victoria Duran of Columbus, Ohio seems to think that the unborn are just a “clump of cells,” the Proud Burger message can teach her that we’re all just bigger “clumps of cells.”
Ms. Duran is composed of many more cells than an unborn child, but no one is advocating that we kill her. It seems odd that she would a.) discriminate against someone with less cells than she, and b.) resort to assault and battery on the streets of Columbus because other clumps of cells are exercising their First Amendment rights.
As Hotair’s Ed Morrisey observes, “It’s amusing in one respect to see someone so passionately engaged in exposing her ignorance of human biology while attempting to lecture someone else about it, as well as her ignorance on basic American civics.”
As humorous as it is, it’s also rather frightening. While Ms. Duran ultimately has little power to strip social conservatives of their rights, there are plenty of “Durans” out there who would love to see that happen. Sometimes they expose themselves (literally) in places like Argentina when they assault Catholic men, or sometimes such bigotry rears its head when guys like Marvel Comics writer Dan Slott tells Hobby Lobby and its Christian supporters they should go to “Christ-land.”
Let us revisit Ms. Duran’s actual speech. While it is hardly eloquent, the intellectual DNA is similar among “clumps of cells” who categorize themselves as liberal.
“This is absolute lying there, fucking dipship. That is not what a fetus looks like, okay? It’s a clump of cells at twelve weeks. It does not look like that. It’s a clump of mother fucking cells. No hands are shown at that time. You so white privilege racist fucking male that doesn’t stand for women’s rights. Get the fuck out of her, fucking dipshit. And get that camera out of my face, either. Fuckwit! … Fuck you. Fuckwit. You are fucking white male privilege assholes. What you are is a racist motherfucker as well. How dare you fucking do this kind of shit, asshole. … You fucking sexist misogynist motherfuckers. That is all you are! You don’t give a shit about women! You don’t give a shit about life! All you are is a bunch of assholes. All you are a bunch … No uterus, no right to talk about it! Understand me, motherfucker? … Your signs deserve to get fucked up!
The thought police are out in full force. Race? Class? Gender? It’s all there. “Privileged…white…males” only have free speech until that speech upsets women like Ms. Duran. Then it’s gone. Regardless, it seems odd that Ms. Duran would accuse a young man from Created Equal of being racist, when it is women like Ms. Duran that have arguably cheered on black genocide via abortion for decades.
What if science told us that certain DNA sequences are likely to result in a gay or lesbian child? Would Ms. Duran support abortion then? Does she support forced abortions in China? Burger King’s motto used to be “Your way, right away,” but in Ms. Duran’s world it’s “My way, right away. Understand me, punk?”
We used to live by the old saying: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Today, a bunch of totalitarian thug wannabes don’t even give the phrase lip service — they just get in your face, destroy your property and threaten you with violence.
At the end of the day, it is not the Victoria Durans of the world who are the most dangerous to society as a whole. Instead, we must primarily concern ourselves with influential individuals sowing seeds of hate into the fertile minds of the young. Her consciousness is filled with weeds, but it is the farmer who planted them there that we should be concerned about.
And with that, I will leave you with this: Even The Burger King Kids Club was once just a “clump of cartoon cells.”
Update:
Just in case there are any Ms. Durans who want to take part in the comments section, I have some hard science for you.
“Five weeks after conception, the embryo first begins to assume features of human appearance. The face is recognizable, with the formation of discernible eyes, nose, and ears. Limbs emerge from protruding buds; digits, cartilage, and muscles develop. The cerebral hemispheres begin to fill the brain area, and the optic stalk becomes apparent. Nerve connections are established between the retina and the brain. The digestive tract rotates from its prior tubular structure, and the liver starts to produce blood cells and bile. Two tubes emerge from the pharynx to become bronchi, and the lungs have lobes and bronchioles. The heart is beating at 5 weeks and is almost completely developed by 8 weeks after conception. The diaphragm begins to divide the heart and lungs from the abdominal cavity. The kidneys approach their final form at this time. The urogenital and rectal passages separate, and germ cells migrate toward the genital ridges for future transformation into ovaries or testes. Differentiation of internal ducts begins, with persistence of either müllerian or wolffian ducts. Virilization of external genitalia occurs in male embryos. The embryo increases from about 6 to 33 mm in length and increases 50 times in weight.
Structurally, the fetus has become straighter, and the tubular neural canal along which the spinal cord develops becomes filled with nerve cells. Ears remain low on the sides of the head. Teeth are forming, and the two bony plates of the palate fuse in the midline. Disruptions during the latter part of the embryonic period lead to various forms of cleft lip and palate. By 10 weeks after the last menstrual period, all major organ systems have become established and integrated,” (Gabbe Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 6th Ed. Copyright 2012 Saunders/Elsevier. Chapter 8: Drugs and Environmental Agents in Pregnancy and Lactation: Embryology, Tetratology, Epidemiology).
Update II:
It looks like I wasn’t too far off with my observation about the intellectual DNA of Ms. Durnan. From the Tumblr account “Pro-choice or No Voice” comes this gem: “I always look at these ‘pro-choicer assaults pro-lifer’ videos hoping to see some smug little shit get socked in the face…”
You have it first hand from the source, folks. That’s the “tolerance” of Ms. Duran’s worldview.
Members of the comic industry recently got a little testy when Chuck Dixon and Paul Rivoche went to the Wall Street Journal about a bias against conservative creators in the industry. Marvel’s Tom Brevoort quickly assured everyone that no “blacklist” exists at Marvel (Can you name one openly conservative writer who is employed there?), and then surmised that it wasn’t conservatives that editors have a problem with, but certain kinds of “behavior” **cough** that might translate into not getting employment.
Sure, no “blacklist” exists, as long as you don’t consider The Amazing Spider-Man writer telling Christians to move to “Christ-land” as evidence that maybe — just maybe — Marvel isn’t too friendly towards guys like Messrs. Dixon and and Rivoche.
Imagine if I found out that my local pool was going to have very specific “women-only” hours for Muslim women, who don’t want to be seen by men outside their immediate family. We’ll use Seattle as an example:
Seema is from Pakistan. Sahra is from Somalia. Both are Muslim. They say having a women-only swim program allows them to get some exercise while observing their religious customs. Seema says their religion requires them to cover in front of men. “We don’t cover our heads in front of our husbands, our dads, brothers,” she says. “But when we go outside we’re supposed to cover for woman’s modesty.”
What if I pulled a Dan Slott-like move, stretched my bigotry muscles, and told Muslim women: “This is America. Go find pools in ‘Muslim Land.'” I’m pretty sure my employer would fire me.
And then there’s this gem:
The thing with Hobby Lobby and other small religious businesses is that they took their grievance to court — and won. They followed the rule of law and the highest court in the land agreed with them. That is not an “asshole” move, but yet Dan Slott likens Christians to “conquistadors” and “assholes.” It’s incredibly mean, but also cartoonish; it’s reminiscent of 1992’s Office Space, where the character Peter Gibbons says “You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.”
Speaking of the Jewish faith, it’s now well-known that Dan Slott is very protective of his ancestry (just don’t mention that his own characters get taken to task by Bleeding Cool for engaging in “Nazi-like experimentation”). How would the Marvel scribe react if someone went full-Dan Slott on Jewish people like he does on Christians and Americans who are strong advocates of the Second Amendment?
Here we see another example of Dan Slott’s intolerance:
Hube over at Colossus of Rhodey made a good point shortly after the tweet went live: How would Dan Slott react to someone who tweeted him in a New York Jewish accent about money?
The tweet was deleted — down the Memory Hole — Dan Slott’s go-to move when he gets caught saying things that reflect poorly on his employer. It’s a good thing the Internet is forever.
If you are a fan of Marvel comics who just so happens to be a Christian, a Second Amendment advocate or simply someone who just doesn’t like seeing bigotry broadcasted via social media, you should probably think twice about buying products put out by Dan Slott. You might want to also consider contacting Marvel. It doesn’t have many standards these days, but there are a few that are hanging by a thread.
Slow clap for Dan Slott. He’s the guy you want to find when you want tweets infused with anti-Christian bigotry, or Marvel comics that are consistently trying to see how low the bar can go.
Update: Dan Slott continues to read this little old blog and attack it from afar because, as we all know, it’s much safer to allow Twitter groupies to massage your ego than to actually defend the indefensible.
Question for Dan Slott: If I just had a beef with a few Jews over a religious issue with political implications, and I told them to go to “Jew-land,” how would you respond? How would my employer respond? That’s right — you’d go ballistic. And then my employer would fire me. But you get to tell a bunch of Christians to go to “Christ-land” without consequences. Hypocrite.
Update II: Marvel’s Tom Brevoort has weighed in. No response to the question “If Chuck Dixon told Dan Slott to go to ‘Jew-land’ over a religious gripe, would he still get work?” Telling.
Someone else brought up similar sentiments about Marvel’s creators over at the New Brevoort Formspring. It turns out that Mr. Brevoort really does embrace the the strange business model “needlessly alienate potential customers” to grow the company.
‘Son of God’ came out in theaters this past weekend, and you’ll be shocked (not really) to find out that critics hated it while most audiences walked away happy. The movie raked in well over $26 million dollars, coming in second to Liam Neeson’s ‘Non-stop,’ where the bad guy is a veteran who loves the Constitution. I saw ‘Son of God’ this weekend and am baffled (not really) how it could have possibly scored a “26% rotten” on Rotten Tomatoes. While it’s obvious that the movie was made by believers for believers (and those who may want to dip their toes into the pool of Christianity), it’s certainly not a “bad” film.
Perhaps critics were simply harsh because they feel it belongs on television instead of the big screen. That seems plausible. Given that, I decided to revisit another movie about Jesus, Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ It turns out the critics didn’t like that one too much either.
Here is what I found: Rotten Tomatoes doled out a 49% “rotten” score for ‘The Passion of the Christ,’ while audiences overwhelmingly liked what they saw. Maybe if it made an extra $100 million over its already-impressive global haul it would have matched Rotten Tomatoes’ score for Neeson’s evil constitution-loving veterans flick…
‘The Passion of the Christ’ was a “film” by a “filmmaker.” Whether you like Mel Gibson as a person or not, the guy has talent. Audiences recognized it as well, and rewarded ‘The Passion of the Christ’ to the tune of $370 million at the box office in 2004. If I take my “Catholic hat” off and look at both movies from the point of view of someone who doesn’t particularly care for Christians, ‘Son of God’ would get the 49% “rotten” score and ‘Passion of the Christ’ would get a 65% “fresh” rating — but I’d shake my fist at Mel as I did it. There is really no way to read some of the critic’s reviews without coming to the conclusion that they simply don’t want Jesus on the big screen.
I was really skeptical about this movie. Going into it I was like: “All right, it’s part of a mini-series. It’s going to feel like it’s made for TV.” And it does for the most part, but there there were a couple of things about this movie that I did like what they did with it. Going into this movie first and foremost I was hoping they would touch on the fact as to why people felt this Jesus had to die. Seriously, a lot of these Jesus movies gloss over that. They’re like “Hey it was Jesus and he died because he had to, it’s salvation and stuff. It’s magic.”
But I’m always left with that feeling, “No, like politically speaking why did they feel they had to kill this guy and why was it just such a big deal and what went into it? And this movie — actually to my surprise — touched on that very thing. …
This movie is one of two things: it’s either a really impressive made-for-TV movie or it’s a not-as-impressive theatrically released movie. … ‘Son of God’ engaged me where I wanted to be engaged. And it played the angle I was actually hoping it would play that I didn’t think it would play. It still feels like a made-for-TV movie for sure, especially in some scenes. However, I’ll still say ‘Son of God’ is a good time…”
There’s more to it, but you get the point. It’s a fair review. Head on over to Rotten Tomatoes if you want to see a slew of people who seemed to be looking for things to criticize from the first moment Diogo Morgado — who did a commendable job as Jesus — appeared on screen.
The other thing that ‘Son of God’ did a good job with was showing the relationship Jesus had with his disciples. Think about it: Peter, the “rock” of the Church, denied Christ three times. Matthew was a tax collector. Judas betrayed him for 30 pieces of silver. Jesus called imperfect people to Him. He took in misfits. He loved the unloved and forgave those who society said were unforgivable. While ‘Son of God’ does skip a lot of important parts of the Bible, those it did show were handled with care. It’s a solid movie to watch if there is someone in your life who has ever essentially asked, “What’s the big deal with this guy? Tell me about Him.”
With that said, for those who already believe in Christ I’d have to go with Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’ as a must-see Jesus film. If you watched ten movies with Jesus in them and someone asked “Which one was directed by a Catholic?” there would be no question (which to this Irish-Catholic is a good thing).
While ‘Son of God’ says, “Hey, there’s this guy and his name was Jesus and you should look into him,” Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’ says: “Listen buddy, this guy went through some serious s**t — grueling gut-wrenching pain that you can not even fathom as you curl into bed at night with your XBox in 2014 — so check it out and appreciate what this man did for you.”
When I read reviews by critics who obviously have a thing against religious people I can’t help but think of the Romans laughing, kicking, spitting and punching Christ as he carried his own cross to the place of his execution. Whether one believes Jesus was the Son of God or not, no serious person argues that He wasn’t a real man who was put to a gruesome death for what He preached. That is why guys like Jeremy Jahns ask: “Why was it just such a big deal [to kill Him] and what went into it?” Most people do not know the story aside from the watered-down version they might get as a kid, or (sadly) the jokes that are told about Christ on television sitcoms.
In short, if you’re curious about Christianity, then check out ‘Son of God.’ If you want to get a taste of the very real pain Jesus went through before his death, check out Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion of the Christ.’ In both cases, if you go into each movie with an open mind, then you’ll walk away and realize that the critics at Rotten Tomatoes hold openly Christian films to an unfair standard.
Remember when Kevin Smith’s Westboro Baptist Church-inspired horror flick ‘Red State’ barely cracked $1 million dollars? Since portraying roughly half the nation as potential religious whack jobs worked out so well for him, he’s decided to up the ante by pitting humanity and Satan against a giant raging “Christzilla” figure. As usual, the “daring” filmmaker failed to disclose any plans to ridicule Islam.
Smith shared details about that project and updates on other movies in the works, and also revealed how he’s going to approach his film career going forward, in an extensive Facebook post on Monday.
The filmmaker wrote that he’ll soon start writing a movie about mankind teaming up with Hell to fight a rapturing giant Jesus.
“[R]ight now, the aim is to shoot CLERKS III this May — so this HELENA HANDBAG picture would still be a ways off anyway. But why sit around commenting on other people’s lives and art on the internet when I can try to make some NEW art instead? As for the title: If you heard the podcast, you know Scott suggested CHRISTZILLA in place of HOLY CHRIST! – the title of the fake movie in the original podcast. I asked the audience to offer up their suggestions at #BeatChristzilla and they were all really fun! But I’m going with the title HELENA HANDBAG – which comes directly from the plot of the flick (it’s kind of a nod to David Lynch’s unproduced ONE SALIVA BUBBLE screenplay, too — which was also about the end of the world and also carried a title that didn’t really prepare you for what the movie was about). So I’m off to write HELENA HANDBAG.
“Clerks III” followed by another attempt to get under the skin of religious folks? Perhaps in a few years “Clerks IV: Dante’s Inferno” can fuse Kevin Smith’s two primary go-to career options. Jay and Silent Bob can travel to the depths of Hell to save Brian O’Halloran.
For younger moviegoers, it is hard to explain how time has exposed Smith’s incredibly limited range as a writer and director. 1994’s “Clerks” was a truly inspired effort, and “Chasing Amy” solidified his reputation at the time as a witty guy with his finger firmly planted on the pulse of American pop-culture. People started copying his style, and instead of searching out new intellectual landscapes to explore he stayed in the same arena of thought with the usual creative teams. With each iteration, the “Kevin Smith” brand became more stale. Smith, however, doesn’t quite see it that way:
JERSEY GIRL, ZACK & MIRI, COP OUT – while I love them all, these are movies anybody could make. Like ’em or hate ’em, nobody else but me could’ve (or would’ve) ever made CLERKS. Or CHASING AMY. Or DOGMA. Or RED STATE. Or CLERKS II. Or MALLRATS. Or JAY & SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK.
Mall Rats — a funny movie about slackers. No one but Smith would have done that? The 90s would disagree.
Chasing Amy — a sharply written romantic comedy involving Lesbians? No one but Smith would make that? The growing Netflix section on gay and lesbian movies says otherwise.
Dogma — a critique on the Catholic Church. No one but Smith would make that? Okay.
Red State — a horror flick that blasts fundamentalist Christians. No one but Smith would make that? Gotcha.
Does Kevin Smith use the caps lock button to convince himself that his assertions are true, or does he think that talking loudly convinces the rest of us of the veracity of his claims? Will the sequel to “Helena Handbag” be called “Islamabad Burka”? Don’t count on it.
If Kevin Smith wants a movie that no one else would make, perhaps he could write a film that pits Giant Muhammed against Mothra. Giant Muhammed could also have a harem of topless women the size of The Sacred Mosque Al-Masjid Al-Haram. But Smith won’t go there because it’s easier to needle Christians with “Christzilla” than it is to make a film that lands on the radar of the world’s nuttiest Islamic clerics. Just ask Mark Basseley Youssef (formerly Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of “Innocence of Muslims.” He’s the guy the Obama administration couldn’t act fast enough to pull out of his home for a perp walk. Crime? Daring to criticize Islam.
Kevin Smith is an intelligent guy with some good instincts. He was way ahead of the game when it came to podcasting and the format plays to his strengths. However, his role as screenwriter and filmmaker has suffered from years of staying inside his comfort zone. Worse, he still thinks that making jokes at the expense of devout followers of Jesus is edgy. It’s not. It’s just sad and, on some level, cowardly considering many of the real threats to the creative freedoms he enjoys as a citizen of the United States.
Kevin Smith doesn’t want to end up like Mark Basseley Youssef (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of “Innocence of Muslims,” so he sticks to mocking Christians.
In April of 2013, the world had a chance to see what modern leftist “feminism” is all about when Belgian Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard was harassed by screaming topless women who drenched him in water while he prayed.
Now, Argentina’s feminists are making news, less because of their stance on abortion and more because their behavior is hardly discernible from wild animals.
Buenos Aires, December 2nd, 2013 – Extremely disturbing video footage from Argentina shows a mob of feminists at a recent protest attacking and sexually molesting a group of Rosary-praying Catholic men who were peacefully protecting the cathedral in the city of San Juan from threats of vandalism.
The women, many of them topless, spray-painted the men’s crotches and faces and swastikas on their chests and foreheads, using markers to paint their faces with Hitler-like moustaches. They also performed obscene sexual acts in front of them and pushed their breasts onto their faces, all the while shouting “get your rosaries out of our ovaries.”
Who is the feminist genius who thought that spray painting the faces and crotches of praying men would be a good public relations move?
Let’s give a slow clap for the women who decided that spitting in the faces of men, who only wanted to protect their church from vandalism, was a legitimate way to express their feelings.
Women are unequal before the law in Argentina — unfortunately, they are unequal in ways that allow them to assault and sexually molest peaceful citizens with impunity. In a more just society they would have gotten a crack of the baton across the wrist and then hauled off to jail for attempting to spray paint an innocent man’s face and eyes.
More fascinating at these kinds of protests are the women who think stripping down naked and acting like a fool says, “I love myself,” when in reality it says, “I loathe myself.”
Nothing telegraphs the righteousness of your cause more than proudly displaying rolls of belly fat and inviting another woman to shove her head between your crotch.
Disgruntled because a chain of men who believe in God prevent you from filling their church walls with graffiti? Take off your shirt and rub your breasts against the arms linking them all together. Bravo.
Eventually, their “protest” broke down into what can only be described as a bunch of savages howling and hooting around a fire. Apparently, there was singing:
According to InfoCatolica, some of the women chanted a song, with the lyrics: “To the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, who wants to get between our sheets, we say that we want to be whores, travesties and lesbians. Legal abortion in every hospital.”
Whores, indeed. Mission accomplished, ladies!
And finally, no protest populated with screaming banshees would be complete without burning an effigy of some kind. These women chose Pope Francis.
Inside the cathedral, 700 people were also in prayer accompanied by their bishop Mos. Alfonso Delgado. After unsuccessfully trying to get into the building, the women burned a human-sized effigy of Pope Francis.
If modern liberal feminists want to burn effigies of the guy who sneaks out in the middle of the night to give alms to the poor, who washes and kisses the feet of drug addicted teens, and who lovingly embraces people with tumors all over their body, I say “go for it.” I’m actually a little disheartened that some religious people want evidence of this protest banned from YouTube — the world should see it. Any town that wants church attendance to skyrocket should invite Argentina’s liberal feminists to protest in their neighborhood as soon as possible.
To my wife
Douglas Ernst Blog 