It happened last week, three minutes into the second half of his game against Cagliari, when Di Carlo reportedly said “porco dio,” which according to Babelfish, translates into English as “God pig.”

[T]he Verona club’s coach “proffered a blasphemous expression” that was to make him the first victim of a zero-tolerance policy on irreverence.

The president, Giancarlo Abete, declared it would “intervene with official decisions to make clear that blasphemy is within the definition of ‘offensive, insulting or abusive language’ in the rules [that warrant sending-off]“.

Wow. So you can get kicked out of professional coaching for saying “god pig”? What about if he said “praise God!”? Would that be okay? What if it was said mockingly?

Or what about “gosh darn it”? That’s just a nice way of saying “god damn it” — which is blasphemous.

Perhaps next they will mic up all the players and make sure they are not quietly mumbling any blasphemous phrases…

I was a TrueChristian™ for about eight years starting back in 1981. I attended a Pentecostal non-denominational church (Glad Tidings-Boise) back in the first five years of my time as a believer. It was there that I learned to accept the idea that my first duty to God was to tithe to the church. I was absolutely faithful in my giving of tithes and offerings. I was a “happy giver.”

After five years at Glad Tidings I became drawn towards Calvary Chapel of Boise. The vibe at C.C. was way more up my ally. I’m a professional musician and C.C. was just then forming in Boise and I fit perfectly into the youth-oriented fellowship.

Calvary’s Pastor (Bob Caldwell) and I became really good friends. We not only built the C.C. fellowship together, we also did a lot of prison ministry and even had some “leadership retreats” together.

Backsliding

After three years as C.C.’s music minister, I met some other musicians in the church and we decided to start doing some secular gigs just for fun (I even had Pastor Bob’s blessing on it). It wasn’t long before I wanted to get back full time into the professional music club circuit.

Pastor Bob and I parted company at that time … but we parted on the very best of terms. There was no condemnation from him towards me, and, I had no negative feelings for leaving the church. This would turn out to be the key to why he would eventually grant my “request” for a refund of my tithing contributions to Calvary Chapel.

Of course, I soon backslid into partying and wound up getting a divorce. After several years of living the old musician lifestyle, I met my current wife (of twenty years), stopped drinking, settled down and had two daughters. Once I quit drinking (without A.A. or any other “spiritual” assistance) I began to read Thomas Paine and Robert Ingersoll. Once I discovered the internet (Infidel Guy Show) there was no turning back. I found complete freedom from religion.

Giving

After some time, I started to remember an incident that had happened to me way back in my days at Glad Tidings Church. I had been watching the P.T.L. Club on TV and got suckered into believing that the Lord wanted me to send P.T.L. a thousand bucks! I sent the money. When my Pastor’s wife (sister Barnett) found out that I’d sent P.T.L. $1000, she took me aside and scolded me that the Lord wanted his people to give their money to “where they are fed” i.e., Glad Tidings. She suggested that I call P.T.L. and ask for my money back.

So I did. When I asked P.T.L. to return the money they agreed and I allowed them to keep $100.00 for being so understanding. I then gave the remaining $900.00 to Glad Tidings. After all; had I not already given the money to “The Lord”?

Fast forward to 2006. One faith-free day I happened to recall my P.T.L. experience and began to ask myself: “Why not simply ask, not demand or insist, but politely ask for my money back from Calvary Chapel?” All they could say was “no,” right? I had left the church on excellent terms, and Pastor Bob was a very cool, very laid back guy.

Refunding

By that time Calvary Chapel was huge. I knew Bob would remember me, so I wrote him a short email asking if he could help me with some questions that I had involving donations to the fellowship. Bob wrote back almost immediately with a nice letter saying that he had thought about me many times over the years and had meant to contact me and that he was sorry that he had never actually done it. He was very sweet and kind as always.

He then referred me to his Assistant Pastor (Mike Sasso) for help with my questions. I send a courteous response thanking Bob for his kind words and attention. I then connected with Pastor Mike and began writing questions back and forth. I wrote to Mike that my understanding was that when I gave money to the fellowship, I was essentially giving the money to God and that the church was merely “the conduit” between me and Jesus.

At first Mike was very friendly and eager… on his best pastoral behavior. Once my questions began to turn towards a “could the church ever refund money that had been given” type of query, Mike’s language became stiff and defensive. He then referred me to deal directly with Pastor Bob.

In my next email to Pastor Bob I selected my words very carefully.

Dear Bob,

I know that what I am asking is probably a first and highly strange request; even for someone like you who has spent so many years in the ministry. Please always keep in mind that what I am proposing is a request, not a demand. You can deny my request and I give you my promise that there will be absolutely no hard feelings on my part.

Here is my request:

Would you be willing to return to me all or any part of the money that I gave to the ministry at Calvary Chapel during my years in the fellowship?

If you say “no”, I will fully understand. Your choice is final and that will absolutely be the end of my inquiry. I await an answer at your convenience.

Cordially,

Billy….

I did not hear back from Pastor Caldwell. I waited for a couple of weeks, sent another similar letter and included an apology stating that I understood that he (Pastor Bob) must be very busy, but I would really appreciate a response.

Again, there was no response.

I sent a third letter stating (paraphrasing here:) “Thank you for the time and attention that you have already given to this matter. I will assume your silence means ‘no’ to my request.”

Eventually his decision came.

Pastor Bob wrote me back telling me that he was handing the situation over to the church accountant and that he would be authorized to work with me towards a settlement!

I want you to imagine the reaction that Bob’s “concession letter” caused from me and my wife! My jaw dropped and my eyes almost popped out of my head. We were hysterically laughing, jumping and shouting, “It’s a MIRACLE!” We never in a million years seriously expected to see a dime of that money, and now here I was reading a letter from Pastor Bob granting my request for a refund.

After a phone conversation with the accountant at Calvary Chapel, Jim agreed to send me monthly installments of $500 until the agreed amount of $3200 was paid off. The checks came every month and were quickly deposited into my storehouse.

That was the end of my contact with Bob and Calvary Chapel.

Ye Have Not…

I can only speculate what Pastor Bob’s motive was for granting my request for a refund. My circumstances were probably not typical for the way that many people wind up leaving the fold.

Deconversion can be a very difficult and challenging process. I found the action of facing (if only through email contact) my fear of my old authoritative figure (Pastor Bob) very liberating and empowering. Even if things would have turned out differently, I’m proud of myself for standing up to the fear that use to control me.

The moral: “Ye have not, because ye ask not”!

The Supreme Court will review whether anti-gay protests at funerals of American soldiers are protected by the First Amendment, taking up the appeal of a Maryland man who won and then had reversed a $10 million verdict against the small Kansas church that conducts the demonstrations.

The case will seek to balance a group’s free speech rights with the rights of private individuals to be protected from unwanted demonstrations and defamatory remarks. A federal appeals court said the church’s protests were “utterly distasteful” but protected because they were related to “matters of public concern.”

I’m hoping they rule against these protests. They are despicable. What do you think — freedom of speech or hate speech?

Of course their point is that youth pastors should be even lamer — teach the Bible and demand kids try and live by it — but it’s still a decent parody of how silly youth pastors can be.

The film is a personal, independent narrative that takes a sensitive but critical look at at religion in America. FAITH follows two different people and the evolution of their belief in god after personal tragedy befalls them both.

Chris is a devout, fundamentalist Christian whose son is bi-polar. When prayer doesn’t work, and his son commits suicide, Chris’s worldview is thrown into disarray.

Betty is a teacher at the local community college who grew up in the church. With a father who was both Pastor and philanderer, Betty dismissed religion as hypocrisy and simplistic fable. But she just found a lump in her breast. As she faces her own mortality, the attraction to some kind of higher power might be too strong to ignore.

FAITH juxtaposes two narratives to uncover the ways we are pulled towards – and away from – God. The film exposes the hypocrisy and arrogance of fundamentalist Christianity while exploring the need to call on a higher power during times of crisis.

The film will be shot in and around California’s Central Valley, which forms the setting and ideological backdrop of the story. Eli Daughdrill, the film’s writer/director, grew up on an Almond ranch in the valley and knows the people and place very well. The characters in the story are fictional but certainly feel like real residents of the valley.

You can support the project through Kickstarter and follow the progress on @themoviefaith.

Nineteen-year-old Keshia Canter handed three burgers, fries and milkshakes to a car-load of Tuesday afternoon customers at the Hi-Lo Burger’s drive-though window. A lady sitting in the backseat leaned forward, between the two men in front, and handed her a leaflet: “Women & Girls” it said across the top.
“Even though nothing is showing, you’re being ungodly,” Canter recalled the woman telling her. “You make men want to be sinful.”

The crazy woman gave the two girls a tract:

“You may have been given this leaflet because of the way you are dressed,” it begins. “Have you thought about standing before the true and living God to be judged?”

It continues with one essential theme: The sins of men are, in part, the fault of women, specifically women in tight-fitting clothing. Yates was annoyed. Then she got to a section on page two:

“Scripture tells us that when a man looks on a woman to lust for her he has already committed adultery in his heart. If you are dressed in a way that tempts a men to do this secret (or not so secret) sin, you are a participant in the sin,” the leaflet states. “By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?”

It’s pretty amazing people are stupid enough to believe these things. Dressing immodestly is relative. Many Muslims use this same argument, except it’s with headscarves — because if a woman shows her face, it’s obvious she’s asking to be raped.

In a way, these people are trying to excuse the crime of monsters — people who assault others for their sexual pleasure. Instead of laying the blame where it is due, they put it on the victim.

It might be true that provocatively-dressed girls draw more attention by rapists. So what? Nice cars are more often stolen than ugly ones, too. Maybe they’ll be handing out tracts to new car owners telling them that they are at fault for car theft.

Regardless, these people are trapped in the Dark Ages. I feel sad for their children and the guilt and oppression they must experience every day.

Chalk another death up to animal rights insanity and to the ongoing failure of the West to take counsel on practical matters from the Scripture. [...]

The author then relates how this whale had killed two people previously, and continues:

What about the term “killer whale” do SeaWorld officials not understand?

If the counsel of the Judeo-Christian tradition had been followed, Tillikum would have been put out of everyone’s misery back in 1991 and would not have had the opportunity to claim two more human lives.

Says the ancient civil code of Israel, “When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable.” (Exodus 21:28)

So, your animal kills somebody, your moral responsibility is to put that animal to death. [...]

But, the Scripture soberly warns, if one of your animals kills a second time because you didn’t kill it after it claimed its first human victim, this time you die right along with your animal. To use the example from Exodus, if your ox kills a second time, “the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:29)

Ah, yes — if only we followed that enlightened moral code of the Pentateuch! We would be going on witch hunts, buying and selling slaves (and our daughters), and putting to death homosexuals, naughty children, adulterers, polyester-wearers, and killer whales.

What a wonderful society we would be if we only followed God’s Holy Word.

Early Wednesday morning, State Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-Calif.) was pulled over and arrested for drunk driving. Sources report that Ashburn — a fierce opponent of gay rights — was driving drunk after leaving a gay nightclub; when the officer stopped the state-issued vehicle, there was an unidentified man in the passenger seat of the car.

Ashburn has issued an apology for the incident:

“I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment. I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did. I am also truly sorry for the impact this incident will have on those who support and trust me – my family, my constituents, my friends, and my colleagues in the Senate.”

Well isn’t that nice that he accepts the responsibility and is prepared to accept the consequences? I’m sure he’s not hiring lawyers and trying to weasel his way out of anything!

Ashburn’s voting record shows that he’s voted against “every gay rights measure in the State Senate since taking office including Recognizing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages, Harvey Milk Day and Expanding Anti-Discrimination Laws.”

Sometimes, when I get cynical, I think there’s a private gay club where all the anti-gay Republican representatives are members…

It’s difficult to take oneself with sufficient seriousness to begin any sentence with the words “Thou shalt not.” But who cannot summon the confidence to say: Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or color. Do not ever use people as private property. Despise those who use violence or the threat of it in sexual relations. Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child. Do not condemn people for their inborn nature—why would God create so many homosexuals only in order to torture and destroy them? Be aware that you too are an animal and dependent on the web of nature, and think and act accordingly. Do not imagine that you can escape judgment if you rob people with a false prospectus rather than with a knife. Turn off that fucking cell phone—you have no idea how unimportant your call is to us. Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are: psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions. Be willing to renounce any god or any religion if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above. In short: Do not swallow your moral code in tablet form.

(see also Part 2 & Part 3)

Driscoll helped build the popular Mars Hill Church into one of the most talked about evangelical mega-churches in the country, despite its home at the heart of a secular stronghold. That distinction, combined with his church’s culturally savvy but socially and theologically conservative views, gives him significant weight in religious debate.

Or at least, significant attention.

Though his “Avatar” comments made up just a fraction of the Feb. 14 sermon, Driscoll managed to condemn the film in both religious and nonreligious terms. He denounced its “demonic paganism,” but also a message that “primitive is good and advanced is bad.” He resented its portrayal of a “false Jesus” and a “false heaven,” but also the idea of “connecting, literally, with trees and animals and beasts and birds.”

His main objection appears to be that “Avatar” preaches a worship of “created things” rather than the creator. Of nature rather than God.

In that, Driscoll sees demons. And demons — to him as to many Christians — are as common as weeds.

“['Avatar'] is new age, satanic, demonic paganism, and people are just stunned by the visuals,” he said. “Well, the visuals are amazing because Satan wants you to emotionally connect with a lie.”

Driscoll often makes fun of fundamentalists, but he sure sounds like one himself. He tries to be so hip and cool, but then he starts talking like this, and it’s clear he’s just like all the other fundie preachers but with different clothes and music.

Here’s the video:

Back when I was working in a small room with a fundamentalist – something I wrote about way back here – I found myself trying to make conversation about a religion that I hadn’t practiced for years. Fortunately, I had a fair bit of practice from my days in Catholic school and from my personal readings.

At one point during a discussion of the Bible, I mentioned how Job was probably my favorite book. My interpretation of Job comes primarily from what I’ve read from secular scholars and liberal Christians, so it tends to be different from conservative interpretations.

Responding to the Deuteronomist

Pullquote: In Job, God is a powerful and alien force that would rather talk about Its monsterous creations than our human notions of justice and righteousness.

First, Job is literature rather than history. The ancient Jews could write literature just as well as we can, and for many of the same reasons. Second, Job is a direct reply to the Deuteronomists who argued that God always punishes the guilty and rewards the good. Job flips that on its head by magnifying God. In Job, God is a powerful and alien force that would rather talk about Its monsterous creations than our human notions of justice and righteousness.

It’s not exactly a comforting idea, but at the same time it’s also liberating. On one hand, we cannot always expect justice or to be rewarded for our good works. On the other, we can know that the things that go wrong for us are not necessarily God’s judgement upon us. It answers the Problem of Evil by rejecting one of the premises: God is not good, at least in any way that humans can mean the word “good”.

When I tried to explain this to my co-worker, I got a blank look. “The thing I like about Job,” he said, “is that you get to see how God’s court works in the opening.”

If I were God, ignorance like this would be painful.

Giving the Authors Their Due

Pullquote: However I might feel about the author’s beliefs, I feel strongly that we should always keep in view what the author was trying to say – even if we then go on to reinterpret the writings.

The books of Job, Ruth and Jonah are literature that deliberately challenge ideas that appear in other parts of the Bible. Ruth challenges the ethnic purity requirements found in Ezra and Nehemiah by having David be descended from a scandalous Moabite. Jonah is a scathing satire that tweaks the Deuteronomist again. In Jonah, the Assyrians are redeemed, even though they destroyed Northern Israel and scattered the ten lost tribes. A modern equivalent would have to involve a fanatical Christian going to heaven and meeting Osama Bin Laden there.

It’s a testament to the Jewish respect for pluralism that these books made it into the canon to sit beside the books they refute.

But these readings run counter to the usual methods of literalist interpretation. First, it flies in the face of the assertion, per Josh McDowell and others, that the bible is thematically consistent. Obviously, if Job rejects one of the themes of the Deuteronomic histories then this cannot be true. Second, it runs counter to the notion that the Bible requires only surface readings and not interpretation. If biblical authors are working their messages into literary works, then some literary interpretation is necessary.

Finally, I think this kind of thing also challenges the literalist feeling that the Bible is meant for us, today. These works were written by a specific person in a specific time, and they confronting religious issues that were relevant to that time. The authors each have a point of view and they are trying to convince a certain audience. But acknowledging that complicates the idea that the Bible is the directly inspired word of God that is meant to speak to our current age.

By placing the work into this straight-jacket, they essentially force that author out of the picture. However I might feel about the author’s beliefs, I feel strongly that we should always keep in view what the author was trying to say – even if we then go on to reinterpret the writings. Doing otherwise robs the author of their voice and their identity.

So I think it sometimes falls to us – the freethinker, the unbeliever, the liberal Christian – to stand up and speak for the long dead authors whose works are being misused. As much as it may gall out atheist sensibilities, sometimes it is right to defend the Bible.

One of two East Texas church arson suspects kept books on demon possession and atheism as well as assault rifles and guns, and may have left graffiti offering inside information about one of the attacks in a local store bathroom, according to court records. [...]

A search of Bourque’s home after his arrest recovered books titled Demon Possession and The Atheist’s Way.

In fact the newspaper was so concerned that the headline is “Atheist books, guns found at home of arson suspect.”

First of all, Demon Possession does not sound like an atheist book. That sounds like a religious book. Second, what the hell does an atheist book in his house have to do with arson? Why didn’t they say, “Christian books, guns found at home of arson suspect”? Because it doesn’t matter if he had Christian books in his home. Nor would it matter if he had atheist books.

It seems they’re are trying to casually link atheism with arson… or maybe I am overreacting.

What do you think?