Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge

It’s probably time to cut myself off. I do not need to renew my ongoing fascination with the shambling wreck of self-congratulatory ignorance, hypocrisy, and gleeful cowardice I’ll call Meet the New Groksuckers (to account for both their blog and their radio show) every time they say or post something stupid. I’ve established several times that this is what they’re about and all they’re about, and have given plenty of examples. It’s been clear for some time that they have no interest in discussing anything I’ve brought up, and that despite their nominal gripes about the names I’ve called them, they’re not-so-secretly happy for the attention because they would rather be hated than ignored, and they lack the wherewithal to even begin effecting the things they would love to see pass.
This blog has, in the recent past, sent GraniteGrok.com more hits by a two-to-one margin than any other source besides Google, which sends them lots of visitors who aren’t looking for them. Since wingnuts equate noise and activity with validity, this state of affairs surely has their collective pecker oh-so-tentatively easing its way out of the terminal, morose flaccidity that set in once Craig Benson was ousted as governor and formerly ruddy New Hampshire officially entered a hopeful period of cyanosis.
I think I can say without unduly crediting my analytical or rhetorical powers — I mean, let’s be real — that every example of verbal pyrotechnics and each creative slur I’ve used to debunk and describe this sad, bland trio has been accompanied by more than enough point-by-point refutations of their various and deeply stereotypical bleatings to satisfy any objective interloper. They continue to type stuff and push buttons and expend a modicum of energy making sure we know their bodies aren’t yet as dead as their minds, but this is functionally meaningless; they concede defeat every time they back down from a question and offer noise instead of answers.
That’s a windy way of announcing that they’ve embarrassed themselves again. It’s one thing for me to sit here and take apart specific arguments, but the Groksuckers ensure that all anyone really has to do is point at them. So, one more time, this is what I will do, and then I promise to let these twits be unless they show irrefutable signs of earnestly answering any of the charges made against them by this blog and its commenters. Feel free to hold me to this. (Yes, even you, Brian.)
This will be twofold. First I’ll say a few things about an exchange Judy Paris and I have been having, inspired by perhaps the most hysterical OH NO HERE COME THE HOMOS! screed I’ve ever seen. I’m reproducing part of this exchange here; for those who don’t want to give the Grok Stars another hit, what preceded the material I’ve cross-posted below was another of my challenges to Judy to explain both her basis for condemning homosexuality in a secular world and her continued reliance on a discredited source to justify her Jar-Jar-Binks-ian “a-gay is not-ta a born-a that way!” idea. In response, she wrote an incoherent and self-defeating tirade about the Bible, most of which I quoted (the stuff in italics) in my subsequent comment.
Does Judy defend herself ably this time? You decide. It’s long but comprehensive:

“to put it simply, the OT is a historical reference and interpreting it, or parts of it, out of context can make it say alot of things that it doesn’t.”

To put it accurately, the OT is an assortment of largely borrowed apocalyptic myths pertaining to the supernatural and the NT is propaganda aimed at legitimizing those myths via contrivances and tricks that, to the gullible and the incurious, offer the appearance of fulfilled prophecies. You really don’t want to get into a discussion what real historians have to say on the Bible’s historicity.

“The Bible never condones beating children.”

Does it condone not only owning but beating slaves? Does is condone rape and plunder during wartime? Does it foment misogyny? Do you want links to the verses and passages?

By the way, before answering, understand that I’m going to ignore every irrelevant reference you make to “context,” because I long ago learned that Bible believers invoke this term constantly as a “get-out-of-nonsense” card. The passages in the KJV relating to various iniquities and solecisms and speaking to the psychopathic nature of the skybeast you worship are as clear as they could be, given the various sequential translations of these ancient faery tales. If you try to claim I have taken something out of context, I’ll simply turn around and do the same to you and will also add the fact that I would indubitably score far higher than you in tests of reading comprehension even after dropping several hits of blotter acid.

“I love my mother and my dogs, but I don’t have sex with them. People are quite capable of having sex without love and love without sex.”

You should be commended for this, not only for your restraint but for your brilliant analogy. Most gays differ radically from you in that they love their mothers and their dogs, but they don’t have sex with them.

The Bible also makes it clear that it’s wrong for opposite sex married heteros to commit adultery. It’s not as though God only sets standards about homosexual behavior.”

So the fact that God frowns on adultery implies that it dislikes homosexuality? If you believe that God does not tolerate homosexual behavior, please supply the relevant scripture along with the required punishment for committing this “sin.”

A simple question or two for you to answer, Judy: Where in the Bible is homosexuality proscribed? More specifically, you state that people of the same sex can love each other but shouldn’t have sexual relations. Leaving aside the arbitrariness and inanity of this judgment, how does this relate to civil unions? I know a lot of sexless hetero marriages out there; what makes you think gays who love each other are necessarily into this ‘n’ that? Or taken in the reverse, should the government separate straight couples who don’t have sex?

“[God] also understands why each of us as individuals with a unique set of fingerprints do the things we do. Many times we don’t understand outselves and why we do the things we do that we don’t want to do. He unconditionally loves all of us but that does not mean that He condones all of our actions and behaviors.”

Who are you to decide whether gay people really want to love people of the same sex? When they don’t, it’s because of hateful loudmouths like you (and you’re both; quit trying to wriggle out of this identity and just embrace it). All you’re doing here is playing God yourself, which is doubly stupid because 1) God is mythical and 2) no offense, but you aren’t intelligent or even-headed enough to fake being a deity for half a nanosecond.

From my perspective, I wonder whether anyone would really want to be a braying, Bible-cracking ignoramus and halfwit illiterate anti-rights pseudoactivist with a third-grader’s grasp of the natural sciences, yet there are people like this out there, and I don’t reckon it’s my job to fix them, only to protect their targets.

“You apparently want to throw out all of the references in the Bible pertaining to Sodom & Gomorrah.”

No, I enjoy that one. I like that Lot’s daughters [Ed. note -- in the original comment I accidentally wrote "Sodom's daughters"] got him tanked and had sex with him in a cave and later bore his kids, and more importantly, that he remained a great guy in God’s eyes. Another excellent “family values” fable from the Bible. [Ed. note -- I'm still at a loss as to how a human being consisting chiefly of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and sulfur can be turned into pure NaCl, as biochemists refuse to share this information with the world.]

“As far as Bishop Robinson, since you listened to the show, Patrick read something that Bishop Robinson said whereby he insinuated that some of Jesus’ disciples may have been homosexuals. Clearly his motive was selfish to attempt to support his own gay lifestyle.”

I don’t really care about interfaith or intrafaith wars per se, because I’d rather religious delusionals be kept busy fighting with each other so that the thinking people of Earth can be left alone. But if you can’t conceive of the possibility that Robinson, in referring to Biblical homos (and they’re in there – viz. Sodom and Gomorrah, the same story you yourself just mentioned), was not aiming to further his own standing but was hoping for a greater tolerance of gays within the church and within humanity as a whole, then you’re about as “Christian” as a wad of chewed gum.

“I believe that the majority of Bible scholors overwhelming disagree with Bishop Robinson. In fact, many would say that Bishop Robinson commited blasphemy against God by his statement which is the only unforgiveable sin. Yes, the Bible says homosexuality is sin, but it is not an unforgiveable sin. However, to be healed of homosexual behavior, repentance…turning away from…is a requirement.”

Why is it that when you point to scripture, you’re only highlighting God’s word, but when others do so they’re being selfish or are just misreading? Do you understand how self-parodic you’ve been since the day I first read anything you wrote?

“I suggest you read some of what Mr. Glatz’s said mentioned in my post. He sought God and true to His word, God revealed Himself to Mr. Glatz. God makes it clear that if you seek Him, you will find Him.”

I assume you mean “Glatze.” I’ve beaten you to this one, Judy. I feel bad for Glatze, but that’s about it. Even if weren’t engaging publicly in wishful thinking — in a bad joke of a gassy and begodded antihomo publication, no less — his “conversion” wouldn’t explain the millions of gays out there who are happy with their orientation and the thousands who have tried to degay themselves by faith or some other means and failed.

“Many scientists chose not to seek Him, but make their ‘theories’ their God or their chosen lifestyle their God.”

Well, you’re almost sort of right. Some people just don’t need god, any more than grownups need Santa Claus. You choose not to seek Brahma or Isis or Quetzalcoatl, but I bet you could never explain why and defend your belief in Jesus-god at the same time. Scientists (religious or not) rely on evidence when plying their trade; you rely on tradition, wish-making, canned feel-good piffle, and the sorry condition and conditioning of your own mind.

And, scare quotes around the word “theories,” now! Yer doin’ super, dude!

“You can’t look at only one side to make your ridiculous statement: ‘Judy’s ‘scientific’ sources have been thoroughly discredited.’”

Oh, but that’s the beauty of science, Judy. It’s fair and impartial. All I need to do is look at the actual consensus. You won’t do that; I have. You don’t understand, and worse, you don’t care to understand. I do and I do.

By the way, you still haven’t explained what is wrong with homosexuality, even homo-sex itself, without resorting to waving the Bible around like an epileptic donkey. But you know what? Please do not try. I do not want to be tempted to talk to you any more. You make my head hurt, and worse, you undermine what little faith I have that there is any hope humanity as a unit stands any chance of not flushing itself down the cosmic commode in the too-near future.

But just know that if you and your fellow Granite-Heads get to making too much local noise, even if anyone can see that it’s all intrarectally generated as usual, I’ll make it my mission to reveal your foolishness, bigotry, hypocrisy and other rhetorical flaws.

So once again, for all of the comments I’ve made about the various ways in which Judy makes an ass of herself and the numerous flaws in her thinking, the real issue here is a constitutionally unintelligent person acting well within the guidelines of modern biblical Christianity. The problem is faith itself.
Yes, intelligent people are more adept at escaping the clutches of indoctrination than are people with the intellectual barrenness of a Skip, a Doug, or a Judy, but stupidity alone isn’t the problem; the most grossly undereducated trogs out there do not become evil in a vacuum, and as with anyone else they require a reason to hate on something. That “something” is, for too many people, religion. Were it not for the Bible having been hammered into poor Judy’s head, she wouldn’t be saying any of the things she does about gays. She wouldn’t feel compelled to, and even if she did, she wouldn’t feel safe in doing so because she would not have anything to hide her prejudice behind. She’d be no different than someone who hates anyone who looks, behaves, or even thinks differently than she does. And when you attempt in serial fashion to limit the harmless behaviors of other people, you have, no matter how you try to deny it, whether or not you even know it, crossed into hate territory.
Anyone compelled to defend Christianity because they have friends and family members in the cult, or because some followers aren’t skunk-fucking mean and dumb like Judy, are missing the point. We’re all in this position; I can say the same thing about many people close to me and I choose to look at the harder reality. I won’t make excuses for the shitty ideas and practices of people I otherwise love or whose company enjoy. All of the good qualities attributed to the faithful can and do exist outside of the church. None of the bad ones could hope to exist without it — not in the awful, raucous form they do. Claiming that people deprived of religion would find some other mode of destroying each other is stupefyingly blind blame-shifting. Life is too short and difficult already to justify bickering over what a presence that isn’t thinks of your means of sexual gratification or anything else.
Christianity (and its inbred forebears and siblings) in the twenty-first century is a human tragedy, ensuring that millions of people will never reach their human potential in social, educational, or philosophical realms, will fight with one another over issues as mindless as holiday decorations, and will have their thirst for control and oppression sanctioned by their peers both on the street and in government. It is a colossal waste.
If it could somehow stumble on without all of the nastiness, it would be possible to excuse or perhaps even overlook the patent goofiness of it all. But the nastiness is one hundred percent built-in, and thank the FSM that a lot of Christians are — much to the consternation of the fundies and the other loons — excellent people.
More, I’m afraid, this afternoon. Just a little wrap-up and housekeeping — I promise.