Decent, with modification

Kudos to Dispatcher Ed for pointing me toward perhaps the most hilarious locus of moral outrage I’ve ever seen, online or off. Gravely calling itself the American Decency Association, this group of grim-faced agitators for anorgasmia on behalf of the LORD (who, when it comes to sex, alternates between raucous perversion and silence) advocates some of the most ridiculous limits on personal gratification this side of Riyadh.
Naturally, their concept of “liberation” involves absolute demands that others conform to their narrow and twisted views, and specifically that people not patronize a list of “corrupt” merchants almost as long as a lazy man’s list of Bible contradictions in Genesis alone.

What brought them to Ed’s attention was their calling for a boycott of Wal-Mart for not purging itself of all literary evidence that gays exist (see Ed’s post for the jarring specifics). Also on these goons’ hit list, however, are the televsion shows Desperate Housewives, War at Home, and Grey’s Anatomy as well as the retailer Victoria’s Secret, which they say “sells lingerie in an inappropriate and immoral manner and therefore contributes to the sexual objectification of women.” At some point, someone is going to have to remind these high-Christed analysts that according to the Bible itself, women are in fact nothing but sexual objects, given that breeding is the only upright (so to speak) purpose attributed to the distaff brigade in this fine and zany assortment of rape-sack-and-plunder vignettes. But I won’t, because I don’t want to lose my standing among these important motherf*ckers as a decent sort.
There’a a wealth of entertaining material on the ADA site, but the best has to be the ten ways to overcome sexual desires and the 25 strategies for fighting sexual sin. The latter is great because it is based on bits of scripture which implicitly or explicitly condemn enjoying yourself at the expense of your genitals, which should only be used to produce more stupid religious bigots-to-be. This is not a new trick, and neither is my response, which is to point out that regardless of your faith and sensitivties, it is a poor strategy to claim sexual morality or “family values” on the basis of a book that includes the following passages:
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father (Genesis 19:32).
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD (Deuteronomy 23:1).
Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you (Judges 19:24).
And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister (2 Samuel 13:11).
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines (1 Kings 11:3).
Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times (Proverbs 5:19).
And my personal favorite:
For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses (Ezekiel 23:20).
And please, no babbling about “reading in context.” Every good story needs a big-dicked hero, and both the Old and New Testaments are no different. The point, though, is that as usual, there isn’t a single thing about the ADA’s allegdly Godly message that is remotely consistent, let alone beneficial.
What’s convenient for bass-ackwivists like the ones in the ADA is that their versions of inductive reasoning and establishing causality typically involve pointing at the known exposure of a given person to a source of “indecency,” highlighting that person’s subsequent act of cruelty or violence, and declaring the indecency to be the cause of the immoral act. It’s probably giving too much credit to this idea to label it a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, because these people are too ludicrous to merit Latin terms, period, or be discussed in the context of even piss-poor logic. They’re just loudmouthed reactionaries.
Obviously, any American who commits an especially malicious (or benevolent) act has been subject in the course of his or her life to any number of smutty (and pristine) elements of ambient culture. I could blame every crime ever committed by a churchgoer on God and be no more short-sighted than these Magoo-like observers. In fact, whereas shows like Grey’s Anatomy — while surely reeking of Teh Suck — have never been demonstrated to help an otherwise upstanding person along the road to becoming a moral cripple, it can be demonstrated that a great many murderers claim to have acted on behalf of the LORD. Such people are invariably labeled “crazy,” and rightly so. But the fact is that many, many people, acting singly or in groups, have committed atrocities and iniquities using the specific feature of their upbringing called God as justification if not inspiration; far more than have claimed to have perpetrated a heinous act thanks to the existence of buttless riding chaps, Tourette-like bloggers, or Brokeback Mountain.
Hell, look at me. I may not have gone to church as a lad, but my dad went to Catholic school, and that experience rubbed off on his children. We bonded early and often, he and I. Starting when I was maybe about nine, my dad would regularly take me and only me to the drive-in theater, because my mom didn’t feel like watching films like Prom Night and Halloween 3 and my dad didn’t feel like going by himself. I proceeded to develop into a very well-mannered young man who almost never got into trouble, and certainly never hacked anyone to pieces. And thanks to observing my dad try to till the garden during the foul height of black-fly season, I can also swear coherently for 10 minutes straight without repeating myself. Chomsky and Mother Theresa together couldn’t have imbued me with such a talent.
At some level it’s funny to see one outfit acting on behalf of the LORD describe another as “pro-family,” but the humor inherent in watching a bunch of superstitious crybabies repeatedly try to gobble up the already empty term “family values” for themselves has become tiresome. These people are nothing more than scumbags, and their efforts will fail. A huge segment of the free world recognizes them as benighted, but they are either not cognizant of the fact that their weirdo-fickle-god means nothing to a huge number of Americans or they do not care; in either case, they have in effect extended me and many like me personal invitations to go out of our way to insult the “family values” of every addled churchgoer we encounter in a conversational setting. But because I am, at some grudging and occult level, decent, I will instead keep the flaming where it belongs — on blogs presumably read by adults, by choice and with the knowledge of what to expect — and will rejoice in the fact that the collective equanimity of these hapless tools is so easily disrupted.
This is an inconsequential group with a limited influence; all eight of its board members live in Michigan, so what you’re seeing as an upstart gathering of asshats using the LORD as a vehicle for expressing their toxic disenchantment with being sexually inadequate, aesthetically challenged, and unfit for life in the most recent batch of centuries. They can hang this humble review of their f*cked-up agenda in their pro-family asses. Just for them, I’m going to Wal-Mart the next time I decide I need yet another TeleTubby doll at the foot of my bed for sexual inspiration.

  1. #1 by squidward on February 10, 2007 - 4:21 pm

    Oddly, the links to their IRS documents are non-functional.

  2. #2 by llewelly on February 10, 2007 - 6:31 pm

    I’m going to Wal-Mart the next time I decide I need yet another TeleTubby doll at the foot of my bed for sexual inspiration.

    The one with the purple triangle on his head is GAY.
    Just helping you make an informed decision.

  3. #3 by MartinC on February 10, 2007 - 7:56 pm

    The TeleTubbies are at the root of much that is non godly in todays world.
    Is it really true that Richard Dawkins has married Lala ?

  4. #4 by llewelly on February 10, 2007 - 8:39 pm

    Is it really true that Richard Dawkins has married Lala ?

    Why don’t you just email her ?
    Suggested text:

    Dear Lalla Ward:
    I am your Number One Fan. I have watched your TV show over and over again, every episode. Please believe me. People make fun of me because I cannot remember the name of that funny man on your show – who was he?
    Anyways I have a question. Someone told you me married Richard Dawkins!
    I hope this is not true. He is very weird. Did you know his hobbies are chasing ancestor’s tale, unweaving rainbows, and making watches while blind?
    Also, he is a devil’s chaplain, though I think the Royal Navy needed him to do that for that Satanist sailor.
    Anyway, even if you have married this weird dood I am still your Number One Fan.
    Thank you very much.

  5. #5 by Brian X on February 11, 2007 - 2:15 am

    How is one supposed to sell lingerie, one might ask? Oh, right, behind closed doors where The Children ™ can’t see it.

  6. #6 by Brian X on February 11, 2007 - 2:15 am

    How is one supposed to sell lingerie, one might ask? Oh, right, behind closed doors where The Children ™ can’t see it.

  7. #7 by Warren on February 12, 2007 - 10:32 am

    How is one supposed to sell lingerie, one might ask? Oh, right, behind closed doors where The Children ™ can’t see it.
    Posted by: Brian X

    Which is ironic, since lingerie is a leading cause of children.

%d bloggers like this: