Join 3,501 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Is it hot in here, or am I completely, totally batshit crazy?
October 15, 2003 9:02 PM   Subscribe

The 2000 presidential election was rigged - by God Himself. That's just one of the odd positions held by the man chosen to hunt down Saddam and Osama, General William Boykin, who comes right out and says to muslims, "my god is bigger than your god!" This should win us some friends...
posted by soyjoy (78 comments total)

 
Ok, I've erased two attempts at comments already.

I'll just say that I'm not going to be the one who lets him know the water supply is fluoridated.
posted by trondant at 9:11 PM on October 15, 2003


Boykin tells NBC News that, given his new assignment, he is curtailing such speeches in the future. He says, “I don’t want … to be misconstrued. I don’t want to come across as a right-wing radical.”

Isn't he precious?
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:15 PM on October 15, 2003


 “Well, you know what I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol. But I prayed, Lord let us get that man. "--about a guy in Somalia

Then how come he can't find osama or saddam (or the anthrax guy or the leaker)? He's not praying to get them?
posted by amberglow at 9:25 PM on October 15, 2003


The Widening Crusade
posted by homunculus at 9:30 PM on October 15, 2003


(post title) "is it hot in here, or am i completely totally batshit crazy"

could be a great tagline.. if it would fit!
posted by bhayes82 at 9:32 PM on October 15, 2003


General Jack D. Ripper
"A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works."
posted by spazzm at 9:37 PM on October 15, 2003


In June 2003, Boykin spoke to a church group over a slide show: “Well, is he [bin Laden] the enemy? Next slide. Or is this man [Saddam] the enemy? The enemy is none of these people I have showed you here. The enemy is a spiritual enemy. He’s called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan.”

So that's why the US haven't captured bin L. or Saddam yet! It's not because they have failed, it's because they are going for an even bigger guy.
posted by Termite at 10:06 PM on October 15, 2003


So, if Satan gets caught, then what? Trapped inside at pentagram at Camp Xray or shares office with Karl Rove? The Left Behind series didn't prepare anyone for this contingency.
posted by y2karl at 10:26 PM on October 15, 2003


Speaking of rigging elections, the Independent has a good article on the electronic voting controversy (but who needs Diebold when you've got Yaweh.)
posted by homunculus at 10:37 PM on October 15, 2003


So, when we catch Satan and put him in the Ghostbusters containment unit or whatever...does that mean the War on Terr'ism is over?
posted by fatbobsmith at 10:38 PM on October 15, 2003


The Left Behind series didn't prepare anyone for this contingency.

Speaking of which, here's a good article about the Left Behind series.
posted by homunculus at 10:40 PM on October 15, 2003


Well, to coin a phrase...time to piss on the admiral and call in the boats. This war is over.

We're fucked. Screwed. Hosed. Done over...whatever.

Since the general american populice could give a rats ass about anything other than where the next quarter pounder with cheese is coming from...

We're fucked. Screwed. Hosed...etc.
posted by damnitkage at 11:15 PM on October 15, 2003


Here's a good book about the Left Behind series.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:48 PM on October 15, 2003


It's important to understand the fact that this dipshit represents the views of a sizable chunk of the American populace. I know this for a fact. I was raised with these beliefs.

This General, his president, and his president's main power base (fundamentalist Christians) truly and honestly believe that they are soldiers chosen by God to fight the forces of evil. They widely believe that this battle will take place in the Middle East, in defense of Israel. This battle will signify the end of the world. Armageddon.

This is not a joke anymore.
posted by Optamystic at 12:09 AM on October 16, 2003


d'oh! forgot to say: (via Atrios), of course.

bhayes, thanks for spelling out the title for those who couldn't see it. I tried to construct it so that you'd get the gist even if it got cut off...
posted by soyjoy at 5:10 AM on October 16, 2003


as an employee of a public library, I just wanna say that the Left Behind series and its fans are hella stupid. I can count on both hands the number of times someone has come in, asked for the religious section, shown the 200s, and then complained that they couldn't find the Left Behind books.
posted by mcsweetie at 5:53 AM on October 16, 2003


Optamystic, I've spent many years in close association with various groups of fundamentalist Christians and only a very small percentage of them held eschatological beliefs similar to what you've described, and even those who do generally don't believe that they will be taking part in any sort of physical battle.

If you want to excoriate the general's beliefs, then by all means do so, but don't turn that into a brush to tar all "fundamentalist Christians" with. They aren't a monolithic group by any means.
posted by MrBaliHai at 6:00 AM on October 16, 2003


Thanks, Homunculus. Your link is turning out to be far more interesting than the original...
posted by grabbingsand at 6:21 AM on October 16, 2003


" They aren't a monolithic group by any means."

[giggle]
Aren't you cute.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:38 AM on October 16, 2003


Why are terrorists out to destroy the United States? Boykin said: “They’re after us because we’re a Christian nation.”

That settles it. The only effective tool to fight terrorism is to be a secular nation.
posted by neuroshred at 7:02 AM on October 16, 2003


Insert obligatory: Oh, yeah, well my god can beat up Boykin's god.

So we're a Christian nation? Oi vey.

y2karl, thanks for the much-needed laugh in the middle of more scary crap. Rove and Satan, sharing an office. Satan applies for a transfer because he can't take the heat.
posted by NorthernLite at 7:21 AM on October 16, 2003


MrBaliHai, fundamentalist Christians don't have to hold views as extreme as Boykin for this to be a problem - and scary - even if that is what Optamystic was saying. The real problem as I see it is that such a huge proportion of Americans thinks it's Okay to have someone in such a position of power and deadly force, paid by you and me. Or that it's just fine and dandy to have an attorney general who also believes God rigged his appointment (since he was so soundly rejected by voters) and who undergoes a Crisco Christening, which he takes dead-seriously, to codify the fact. Whether or not they agree with everything someone like this says, the number of people who just think it's not much of a problem for them to be among the most powerful men in the world scares me.
posted by soyjoy at 7:34 AM on October 16, 2003


“Well, you know what I knew that my God was bigger than his."

Wait a cotton-picking minute, doesn't monotheism mean there's only one God? And this guys in charge of what?????
posted by tommasz at 7:54 AM on October 16, 2003


"Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." -General William Boykin

This should be a country where anyone can freely say this, even Boykin, as he has in "dozens of speeches at churches and prayer breakfasts." I think you guys are sinking to a newer depth in your opposition to outspoken Christianity. You can't completely gut religion--indeed, you cannot gut out all things God-related and God-derived--out of jurisprudence, politics, foreign policy, ethics, or education. It's impossible. In your passionate pursuit to do so, you are only replacing one religious influence with another (even though the newer may not bear a cospicuous religious label).

"...for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." Romans 13:4

You might as come to terms with the nature of authentic, Biblical Christianity, namely that it is vehemently held that all other "gods" than the Judeo-Christian God are false, and that complete epistemological authority comes from the Bible. If you can't stomach that, then I suggest doing the inevitable: banning it. At least be honest in your desires.

Of course, I would rather have you all submit yourselves in a passionate love and faith towards Jesus Christ, which would save your soul from God's wrathful justice and glorify God's mercy.

"I don’t know if I can tolerate one more letter or article on tolerance. This word has lost all meaning. It’s been relegated to the status of a swear word. You know, the four-letter type used by bar-hopping, dope-smoking, baby-making adolescents whose acumen for the English language is equivalent to that of a Neanderthal; the only problem is there are too many letters. But really, this word is used to justify every licentious practice under the sun [or even the worship of idols], so it may as well be a swear word... To be tolerant of something or someone doesn’t mean acquiescence, and it doesn’t mean that you can’t speak out in opposition." -Tristan Emmanuel
posted by aaronshaf at 8:25 AM on October 16, 2003


You might as come to terms with the nature of authentic, Biblical Christianity

You might as come to terms with the nature of reality, aaronshaf. Concern about "God's wrathful justice" is on its way out as concern about "fundamentalist wackos blowing up the earth" becomes more prevalent.

Biblical "Christianity"...

this word is used to justify every licentious practice under the sun [or even the worship of idols], so it may as well be a swear word

posted by soyjoy at 8:42 AM on October 16, 2003


I can no longer sit back and allow Muslim infiltration, Muslim indoctrination, Muslim subversion, and the international Muslim conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
posted by ehintz at 8:44 AM on October 16, 2003


This should be a country where anyone can freely say this, even Boykin, as he has in "dozens of speeches at churches and prayer breakfasts." I think you guys are sinking to a newer depth in your opposition to outspoken Christianity.

This guy Boykin was hired to do a job--he wasn't hired to do it by biblical standards or under god's authority, and god didn't call him to do it--he was hired to follow the laws of this country. If he can't do his job, he should be removed. If he needs prayer to do his job, rather than the resources of the military (one of the strongest military force on the planet, i think), he should be removed. The same holds true for Bush and Ashcroft.
posted by amberglow at 8:54 AM on October 16, 2003


Well, it seems we're off in personal-experience territory here, MrBaliHai; it'd be nice if we had some actual numbers to figure out how these impressions relate to reality.

My experience resembles Optamystic's more than yours. This is a subculture where a preacher can spend an hour on Sunday morning talking about ways current world political events correspond to prophecies in the book of Revelation, and nobody thinks there's anything strange about that. The idea that the establishment of the modern nation of Israel is a sign of the End Times is not even controversial. People have completely serious discussions about ways the Muslims might be convinced (or forced) to abandon the Dome of the Rock so that a new temple can be constructed in Jerusalem on the old site. People speak casually of "spiritual warfare" as though grappling with demons is part of daily experience, right up there with tying one's shoes and vacuuming the carpet. And it goes on...

Yes, of *course* people differ, Christian groups differ, and not every fundamentalist Christian really believes, themself, that Biblical prophecy is being acted out in these particular ways - but that's not the point. There are enough of them who take it seriously enough that someone who really does believe it, and wants to act on it, can do so without getting laughed out the door.
posted by Mars Saxman at 9:01 AM on October 16, 2003


Claim that God rigged election refuted
posted by soyjoy at 9:31 AM on October 16, 2003


aaronshaf: "You might as [well] come to terms with the nature of authentic, Biblical Christianity, namely that it is vehemently held that all other "gods" than the Judeo-Christian God are false, and that complete epistemological authority comes from the Bible. If you can't stomach that, then I suggest doing the inevitable: banning it."

So you're saying that either one accepts orthodox christianity not only as right but as the only possible source of truth at all, or else one has to ban it?

You seriously don't see any other alternatives like ignoring , criticizing or making fun of it?
posted by signal at 9:40 AM on October 16, 2003


To be tolerant of something or someone doesn’t mean acquiescence, and it doesn’t mean that you can’t speak out in opposition.

It never fails to amaze me how, after gaining control over a majority of state legislatures, a majority of the national legislature, and stealing the presidency, the right is still able to maintain this paranoia about how the secular humanists are persecuting them and relegating Ghod to the back burner.

This nut can explain how he feels, but when those beliefs are obviously shaping policy, then he is failing in his job: to carry out US military aims. Which, I must add, is not to fight Satan but rather to keep the US safe.
posted by norm at 9:41 AM on October 16, 2003


aaronshaf, you and people like you are the reason this country sucks right now.
posted by Outlawyr at 10:24 AM on October 16, 2003


This should be a country where anyone can freely say this ... I think you guys are sinking to a newer depth in your opposition to outspoken Christianity. You can't completely gut religion ... out of jurisprudence, politics, foreign policy, ethics, or education.

When you are representing your nation -- a nation of many faiths -- you had best not be too free in promoting your religion over others' religions.

You would be rightly pissed if Boykin happened to be a Satanist and went about making statements like "Well, you know what I knew, Satan is the real God and far more powerful than his" while at the same time working as a representative of your nation.

If we're to survive each other, the religionists are going to have to accept that they can not shove their belief's down others' throats.

Let me explain this in very blunt (and perhaps exagerrated) terms: Believe whatever you want, aaron, but DO NOT try to make me follow your religion. I promise I'll kill you long before you convert me.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:49 AM on October 16, 2003


Signal: "So you're saying that either one accepts orthodox christianity not only as right but as the only possible source of truth at all, or else one has to ban it?"

If the self-claims of Biblical Christianity are right, then it is necessarily the only true religion and the only true source from which all legitimate moral principles are derived (via the God-given conscience or revelation). I am saying that if you don't think it right for Biblical Christianity to influence--either in subtlety or in outspoken truth-claims--jurisprudence, politics, foreign policy, ethics, or education, you should ban it. It is the most logical and honest thing for you to do.

Otherwise, you will continue to condemn the well from which you borrow water.

five fresh fish: You would be rightly pissed if Boykin happened to be a Satanist and went about making statements like "Well, you know what I knew, Satan is the real God and far more powerful than his" while at the same time working as a representative of your nation.

I would firstly be angry because He is wrong and is blaspheming the Creator. I do not think it would be accurate for someone to represent this country as Judeo-Christian. Being an ambassador for the kingdom of heaven is far more important to me than being an ambassador to America. That goes for any authentic Christian in any governmental or educational position.

Regarding shoving "beliefs down others' throats", I highly recommend this article on tolerance.
posted by aaronshaf at 11:01 AM on October 16, 2003


Being an ambassador for the kingdom of heaven is far more important to me than being an ambassador to America.

Well, fortunately for us, *you* (as far as I know) are not an American ambassador, or in anyway responsible for making or carrying out American policies. You are entitled to feel yourself to be an ambassador of heaven. Go for it. However, even though I am a Christian, I want those who *are* policy makers and enforcers in this country to consider themselves as ambassadors of America first, and of their respective religious second.
posted by kayjay at 11:19 AM on October 16, 2003


From your article: Tolerance to them means total capitulation to their view.

I am not asking you to capitulate your beliefs. If they are a useful tool for you, by all means keep them! If your religious faith keeps you from cheating on your wife, killing the neighbour's dog, stealing from your employers, then stay religious, please!

What I am saying is that you can not reasonably expect to promote your particular brand of faith against others without there being some amount of backlash.

I know that it is very difficult for religionists to understand that the conviction and faith with which they so strongly, deeply, and wholly know that they are right, is equally strongly, deeply, and wholly felt by people who hold other religious beliefs.

In other words, there are Muslims who are every bit as committed to their faith as you are, Aaron. Every single thing you feel and believe about how right you are, and how wrong they are, is felt by them equally but vice-versa.

If someone of a different religion were to proselytize to you and, worse, try to convert you to their religion, you would be completely resistant and, pushed to the wall, you would undoubtedly be willing to go to great lengths to retain your faith.

And that's why it is necessary for religionists who are representing their country to "put a basket over their faith." Unless you are actively seeking to initiate World War III, you absolutely must respect the conviction with which other people hold their faith.

That isn't to say you must believe that their religion is as valid as your own, nor is it to say that you can not practice your religion appropriately. It is simply that when dealing with a foreign faith, you must be respectful of it and tread carefully, lest you start a conflict that has no good end.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:21 AM on October 16, 2003


Worldwide, violent backlash to the gospel of Jesus Christ? Bring it on.
posted by aaronshaf at 11:32 AM on October 16, 2003


Worldwide, violent backlash to the gospel of Jesus Christ? Bring it on.

why? why bring it on?
posted by amberglow at 11:35 AM on October 16, 2003


I'll repeat an above comment - aaronshaf is symptomatic of what's wrong with this country.

They actually want a holy war, and think that they are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY THE MOST BLESSED BEINGS ON EARTH FOR PROMOTING IT, AND ANYTHING WE SAY TO CONTRADICT THEM ONLY PROVES THEM RIGHT!!

Damn, it's a fucking illness, I tell ya.
posted by yesster at 11:36 AM on October 16, 2003


Wait, wait, I want to say it to aaronshaf:

[giggle]
Aren't you adorable.

That was fun. Seriously, aaronshaf, how can you just entirely shut off your brain like that? Are you really so lacking in perspective and empathy that you can honestly dismiss, with zero empiracle evidence, all paradigms other than your extremely narrow one?
posted by LittleMissCranky at 11:37 AM on October 16, 2003


ITA, yesster. What is going on with the growing fundamentalism in the Muslim and Christian world? They're right about one thing -- if they keep this up, we are looking at an apocalypse.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 11:39 AM on October 16, 2003


Bring it on.

It's your willful blindness to the irony inherent in your declarations, aaronshaf, that often makes people mistake your tone as sarcasm. "Bring it on." Amazing.
posted by soyjoy at 11:40 AM on October 16, 2003


Just to qualify my last statement, I never condoned (and I think it quite misrepresentative and slippery-slope-ish of you to stick that in the rebuttal) any sort of violence as a means of converting people. Nor do I want to get a thrill out of friction.

But as for violent backlash to the loving, outspoken truth-claims of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even in theocratic Muslim states?

Bring. It. On.

"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us." -Romans 8:18
posted by aaronshaf at 11:42 AM on October 16, 2003


aaronshaf:

2 points:

1) You're the one indulging in a "slippery slope", seeing no middle ground between unquestioningly accepting the supposed words of invisible superheroes who live in outerspace and banning them. I simply paraphrased your own assertions and threw them back at you as a question.

2) Please don't go all 111 on us, edit out the preaching and maybe we can have a (semi-) civil discussion here.
posted by signal at 11:47 AM on October 16, 2003


I never condoned (and I think it quite misrepresentative and slippery-slope-ish of you to stick that in the rebuttal) any sort of violence as a means of converting people.

Indeed, who needs to convert corpses.
posted by norm at 11:48 AM on October 16, 2003


The slipper slope is with five fresh fish, not you, signal. Note that it was spoken of in regards to violence. As for your own accusation of my supposed slippery slope, I will conclude my own remarks with the words of Jesus:

"No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. " Luke 16:13

(The "despise" here is much like the "hate" in Luke 14:26... "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.")

AIM: aaronshaf

I must tend to work and to wedding preparations. Take care!
posted by aaronshaf at 12:08 PM on October 16, 2003


(don't mind me... just came to post this from another thread... doo doo doo doo... oh, and anyone who makes a major policy decision because they think God told them to, rather than using their advisors, considering the data, and choosing a carefully planned strategy which considers all available information, they shouldn't be in any position of power...)
posted by nath at 12:19 PM on October 16, 2003


aaronshaf: I was referring to the link you put to my nick: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm, which I assumed to mean you thought I was induling in one. Whatever.

No hard feelings, as aside from the preachiness you seem quite civil, but it's pointless to argue with you, as you confuse random bible quotations with meaningful discussion.

Have fun at your wedding.
posted by signal at 12:21 PM on October 16, 2003


If the self-claims of Biblical Christianity are right, then it is necessarily the only true religion

Boy, will Noah and Abraham and Moses have red faces come judgment day...

Anyone can freely make Boykin's claims. They should expect, though, others to make vociferous counterclaims (ie, "shout at them" and "call them idiots").

But, Boykin has a job. His job is to be an official mouthpiece for the US. As such, he should not, while on the job (and that for damn sure includes any time he's wearing the uniform), say things that are not and cannot possibly be the official position of the United States of America. I hope we would agree that the official position of the US cannot be to root Satan out of the middle east, nor can the government of the United States officially proclaim that Jesus can beat up Allah, or that Allah doesn't exist.

Minimally, if he wants to go around and make speeches to churches, he needs to do it on his own time and money (or the churches' money), and he'd better make it clear that he's speaking only for himself and not for the State, which includes being out of uniform.

Evangelical soldiers are just weird. I still don't know how people reconcile working for the Kingdom with volunteering to murder whoever Caesar says to, but that's just me.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:27 PM on October 16, 2003


mazel tov, aaron. : >
posted by amberglow at 12:43 PM on October 16, 2003


aaron, congratulations on the wedding, although I gotta... um... congratulations.
posted by soyjoy at 12:50 PM on October 16, 2003


FFFish: Unless you are actively seeking to initiate World War III, you absolutely must respect the conviction with which other people hold their faith.

Aaron: Worldwide, violent backlash to the gospel of Jesus Christ? Bring it on.


And that, in a nutshell, is everything that is wrong with fundamentalist religion.

It makes me want to puke.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:05 PM on October 16, 2003


anyone who makes a major policy decision because they think God told them to, rather than using their advisors, considering the data, and choosing a carefully planned strategy which considers all available information

Welcome to George W. Bush's Medieval Presidency.
posted by homunculus at 1:07 PM on October 16, 2003


My bad, signal, I did indeed accuse of you of slippery slope (as I did another). Let my last post serve as a rejoinder. Thanks for the good tidings!

Wish us good outdoor-wedding-weather and honeymoon revelry!
posted by aaronshaf at 1:10 PM on October 16, 2003


To all you batshit crazy folks who think you want a theocracy: Your desire is very immature, unthoughtful, wickedly evil, truly satanic, and you will fully deserve the wrath of your success, should it come to pass.


The more you folks speak with the assumed authority of Jesus, and quote his words, the more I realize that you are exactly who Jesus himself warned us about.
posted by yesster at 1:28 PM on October 16, 2003


Can I just say I think it's hilarious that aaronshaf is registered at Bed Bath and Beyond? The Great Beyond, presumably. Even funnier given that he invited his bride to "consider the high cost of being a disciple of Christ with me, and give up everything." More like "consider the high cost of buying 7 sets of LENOX CHINA Pearl Platinum 5PC PLSTG L6111033 and give up everything except the Chrome-Plated Aromatherapy Bathtub Caddy 51415703512... and the other things, of course.

Seriously though, have a great marriage. Just remember: when the kids are 6, it's time to stop telling them stories about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Resurrection of the Body.
posted by stonerose at 1:29 PM on October 16, 2003


I pursued that same line, stonerose. Do you think that aaronshaf buys into the interpretation of the "camel through an eye of a needle" passage as a reference to geography?
posted by yesster at 1:39 PM on October 16, 2003


I think that what most religionists don't get about secularism is that even though secularists may be skeptical of government promotion of religion* is that even if they had the power to ban religion out right most of them would not. Most of contemporary secularism is heavily influenced by Pragmatist political philosophy which believes that ham-fisted supression of ideas will harm society in the end. Secularists have perhaps an unreasonable belief in the ability of open discussion and debate to change things over time.

* (note that being a secularist does not mean being an athiest, many Jews are uncomfortable with govenment promotion of religion because it tends to lead to them being on the loosing end of religious genocide.)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:39 PM on October 16, 2003


Ah, here's an encouraging development...

Muslim Leader: Nuh-uh, our god's bigger than your god.

I just hope this all gets worked out one way or the other.
posted by soyjoy at 2:34 PM on October 16, 2003


My lady likes the nice stuff. Heck, I don't even know what a bathtud caddy is.

Besides the Roomba, if I had it my way, the registry would be at Best Buy. :)
posted by aaronshaf at 3:12 PM on October 16, 2003


I actually thought aaron was a hoaxter until I looked at his website.

Secularists have perhaps an unreasonable belief in the ability of open discussion and debate to change things over time.

What concerns me most about people of aaron's mindset is the complete impossibility of communicating/debating with them in a logical fashion. Because they are right. God told them so. Only they understand God. If you don't agree, you're going to hell. Period.

And what's most sadly ironic is their inability to see that they are exactly the same as the Taliban, et al.

What can I say, I'm a Methodist. Guess we're going to aaron's Hell. (Oh well, at least Hell will have nice potlucks after we get there. [/end the only Methodist joke I know.])

stonerose: Bed, Bath and the Great Beyond. Har.
posted by NorthernLite at 3:12 PM on October 16, 2003


Guess we're going to aaron's Hell.

So should we start working on an Inferno-Mefi-Meetup?

3rd circle close to midway for everybody?
posted by signal at 4:16 PM on October 16, 2003


The 3rd circle is so 14th century. How about the new 10th circle?
posted by homunculus at 4:26 PM on October 16, 2003


it is vehemently held that all other "gods" than the Judeo-Christian God are false

Just as a clarification, Muslims worship the same God as Christians and Jews, but have a different prophet. I guess by a certain standard, it's a 'different' God, as the concept of the Trinity does not exist, but if you call the God of the Jews the same as the God of the Christians, then you'd have to include the Muslims as well. It may be to Christians that Muhammad is a false prophet, as Jesus was to the Jews, but that is different than "God", no?
posted by cell divide at 4:38 PM on October 16, 2003


I have decided that extreme religionists aren't fit to live on this earth.

Now if only they would rapture themselves out of our existence without killing all the rest of us at the same time.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:34 PM on October 16, 2003


f^3 - amen, brother!
posted by yesster at 6:29 PM on October 16, 2003


So should we start working on an Inferno-Mefi-Meetup?

Can we have a virtual hookup for those of us who don't believe in the circles of hell thing? or can we get a day pass or something? ; >
posted by amberglow at 6:30 PM on October 16, 2003


Any god who actually thinks that behavior like that of Boykin and our own aaronschaf - any god who cold atually be what they think he is - doesn't deserve his position.

More and more, am becoming convinced that in some ways these folks are half right - there is good and evil, god and satan --- but they have been conned into thinking that they are serving god, when they are actually serving satan. Unconscious double agents, as it were.

Any god who is what they say he is, is no god at all, but a devil.

Yet I must restrain myself, for I am fully convinced that moral goodness can only thrive in the absence of moral righteousness.

"The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional "do-gooders," who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means. But it is a mistake to assume that the do-gooders are insincere. The danger lies in the fact that their faith is just as devout and just as ardent as that of the ancient Aztec priest" (Henry Grady Weaver). [he was a devout Christian and a shining beacon of capitalism]
posted by yesster at 6:43 PM on October 16, 2003


Any god who actually thinks that behavior like that of Boykin and our own aaronschaf - any god who cold atually be what they think he is - doesn't deserve his position.

Can't we get some kind of recall goin'?

I think I'd rather see Mary Carey in that position.
posted by soyjoy at 7:08 PM on October 16, 2003


soyjoy, don't be coy, boy
you wanna se Mary Cary
in any position ("fo' shizzin!")
posted by yesster at 7:57 PM on October 16, 2003


Heh. Good job, troybob.

- I mean, yesster.

What I didn't even realize at the time was what number my comment was.

Yep! You guessed 'er!

Wow! We got a trackback from Aaron's blog! Boy, for someone who's too busy getting ready for a wedding to engage in this debate any further, he sure spends a lotta time bloggin!
posted by soyjoy at 8:56 PM on October 16, 2003


I think I've come up with a solution that should work for us all!

The Jews were "homeless" and were given a nation by the world. Or at least by Britain. It's a great place for radical Jews to go live. And, hey, the Roman Catholics also have a nation. Cool.

Let's do the same for all religions. Give them little bits of land to go settle and co-opt from the previous inhabitants and fight over and so on.

And then we'll build great big fucking walls around those little nations. With doors that lock from the outside.

All radical/fundamentalist religionists of all kinds will be able to create their ideal nation-states, where they can rule by whatever theocracy thrills their perverted little minds, where they can be free to discriminate by disallowing various other nationals (no black Muslims allowed in the Country of Radical White Evangels!), and where they can reduce and retract whatever freedoms they see fit to destroy.

The rest of us sensible people can then get on with our lives unimpeded by pinheaded idjits.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:18 PM on October 16, 2003


As someone once said here:
Look, Jesus died. I'm sorry for your loss, but he's not coming back. That's just the way it is.
posted by bshort at 9:51 AM on October 17, 2003


General Won't Quit Over Islam Remarks, Officials Say Interesting follow up story
posted by Outlawyr at 1:45 PM on October 17, 2003


As someone once said here:

it was me! and now that you mention it...
posted by mcsweetie at 9:14 PM on October 17, 2003


Another follow-up:

Taking off from Boykin's claim that the U.S. is at war with 'a guy named Satan," Harry Shearer this week went to the source and had a long, in-depth interview with Satan, in which the fallen angel denied that he was at war with us and went on to opine that perhaps Boykin has "something personal" going on that would lead him to make such statements, maybe something "with the in-laws."

Great stuff. Almost made this insanity palatable.
posted by soyjoy at 8:32 PM on October 19, 2003


End times?

Fuck yeah!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:53 AM on October 20, 2003


Another update: So now Boykin's "apologized," but he's so far off the rails that the Pentagon had to delete parts of his apology including his expansion of the claim at the top of this page, asserting that not just GWB but Bill Clinton was personally selected by God Himself. Now that's reeeally hard to believe.
posted by soyjoy at 1:41 PM on October 20, 2003


« Older The can't-look-away / train wreck site o' the day:...  |  Maggot Art.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments