Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Fuck The Constitution...
They're running the country according to the "Holy Scriptures," and they don't even try to hide it. Check out this incredible bit from a Washington Post piece on gay marriage by Dana Milbank:

The Senate last month rejected -- emphatically -- a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to ban same-sex marriage, so there was zero chance the amendment could be approved this year. But members of the House were answering to a Higher Authority.

"It's part of God's plan for the future of mankind," explained Rep. John Carter (R-Tex.).

Rep. Bob Beauprez (R- Colo.) also found "the very hand of God" at work. "We best not be messing with His plan."

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) agreed that "it wasn't our idea, it was God's."

"I think God has spoken very clearly on this issue," said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), a mustachioed gynecologist who served as one of the floor leaders yesterday. When somebody quarreled with this notion, Gingrey replied: "I refer the gentleman to the Holy Scriptures."

A pity the gentleman's constituents don't refer the gentleman to a job that would better suit his unique intellectual ability -- such as sweeping the steps of the local church.

P.S. I'm still retching over the notion of the "mustachioed gynecologist." Would you let this man look up your cooter? (Hmm, maybe that's how he ended up in government to begin with...where incompetence and lack of critical thinking can take a man all the way to the top!)

For those who like their Holy Scriptures hilarious, check out The X-Rated Bible by Ben Akerley.


In other religious nitwittery, George Bush, discovered that "V" is not just for that big Victory we're seeing in Iraq, but also for Veto. Here it is, short and sweet from the Ayn Rand Institute:

Bush Vetoes Medical Progress

IRVINE, CA--"President Bush's veto of a bill to remove restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is immoral," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"It is revealing that Bush has used his first veto to oppose potentially life-saving research in the name of the dogma that microscopic embryos are sacred. Clearly, Bush and other 'compassionate conservatives' are not concerned with the well-being of humans, but with sacrificing them to clumps of cells in the name of religion. Such opposition is rooted in the perverse worship of human suffering.

"Anyone who truly cares about human life must condemn this religious assault on medical progress."

Okay, what's your guess? Will there be a backlash against all this idiocy...or will America continue receding into religiousness?

Posted by aalkon at July 20, 2006 11:47 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


That is quite scary. You just have no idea where it might lead next, and there's not many good examples of theocracies to draw comfort from. Has it always been like that in the US?

It's odd that here in the UK where we have an established church, you'd never get such things said in the House of Commons.

Posted by: Norman at July 20, 2006 8:19 AM

> That is quite scary.


Posted by: Crid at July 20, 2006 8:23 AM

I don't write many of my brilliant essays these days, as I'm working on other things. But your post inspired me. I'm going to send this to AOL and a few others and see if it gets published. I shall favour(Norman) you with it first.

Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill: Let My People Go


Chris Volkay

George W. Bush made history by vetoing the Bill that would
have removed restrictions on the federal funding of
embryonic stem cell research. Bravo. Godspeed George.

Rarely does humanity have points in history, moments that
capture the truth and raise it above the usual fray of
disinformation and the propaganda spin machine. This is one
of them.

The medieval and middle ages, as we refer to them, were
times that all progress, all science, all medicine, at least
as we knew it, simply stopped, and stopped dead. Why?
Because the church imposed it’s religiosity on the entire
world and we fell into a deep sleep, not greatly unlike the
slumber that befell Dorothy and her fellow sojourners when
the wicked witch sprinkled her potion from the end of her
broomstick. The church had Galileo under house arrest and
all was right with the world. Under this witches spell,
humanity lost some 1500 years of its progress. Who knows
where we could be today if all of those valuable centuries
hadn’t been lost forever. Then something known as the
renaissance and later, the enlightenment came along, and we
slowly began to stir from under the somnolent spell that we
had been snoozing under.

As I write this, there are literally millions of people
suffering from a myriad of vicious diseases, and although
considered poor writing style, I must go back and emphasize
a couple of those words. MILLIONS-SUFFERING-VICIOUS
DISEASES. Not only do these people have to deal with the
pain, sickness and fatigue of these diseases, but the
psychological tolls can be just as devastating. Depression,
anxiety, alcoholism, drug abuse run rampant among
populations. The financial toll then mounts exponentially on
all of us. Any person walking into a hospital ward, seeing a
stage four cancer patient almost comatose from morphine
would be considered a prince of darkness if they suggested
that this person should go on suffering and screaming in
lieu of the best that medicine has to offer.

But yet, on the grand stage of pomp and circumstance, out
trot the showmen, the leaders of legerdemain. With a knowing
grin and a quick few sentences, they condemn humanity, send
us back to the dark ages, all because they have a
philosophy, a belief system that says that this is what
their gods would have them do.

With the attacks of 9/11, at least in my view, a great
opportunity for humanity was lost. There were certainly a
number of factors involved with 9/11, but one of the
fundamental elements was its religious underpinnings.
Politics and economics played a part in it, but so did
religion. In fact, religion informs and underpins the world
views of all of us. There is a causal connection. And yet
this was left out by the popular media and our governmental
leaders because all religious people have adopted a sort of
“Gentleman’s Agreement” not to speak ill of the other
fellows religion, lest he speak ill of yours.

Now we have another moment that I hope doesn’t get easily or
quickly forgotten by the American people. From the moment we
first became self-aware, there has been a battle raging
within us. That battle has been a battle of our fears, our
hopes, our dreams. The world is a scary place, a hard place,
and so, as master inventors, we began conjuring up all sort
of illusions and fantasy friends to keep us safe and warm.
Slowly, humanity has been emerging, over the centuries, from
our superstitions and comfort-giving canards, to fact,
reality and reason.

Religion has always been quick to point out that it isn’t at
war with science, that the two compliment each other and
like to take long strolls down by the lake together. Well,
nothing could be further from the truth. Since the
beginning, superstition was preeminent, and then somewhere
along the line some snotty-nosed kid known as science came
along. The history of the human race is really one about the
battle of these two opposing forces as they duke it out on
the battlefield of public opinion.

Rarely does religion have to take such a prominent and
conspicuous stand on matters. I hope America is paying
attention to what’s happening. View it for what it is.
Religion, to further it’s own agenda, is selling you,
humanity, human beings, down the old water-swirling
porcelain fixture.

Posted by: everybody hates chris at July 20, 2006 8:25 AM


I guess you don't like what I said. I meant it. When politicians start saying things like that there's no knowing where it might end. There's nothing in history or in their scriptures to suggest that it might end somewhere pleasant. I only hope that these religious types don't ever get power, because they'll make life hell on earth for people like me. In other words I'm relying on hope. That's scary.

Posted by: Norman at July 20, 2006 8:30 AM

No, I was just trying to do something "'scary'". (Note the ironic quotes... Stylish, no?) Liberals *hate* things that are "'scary'"! They're more obsessed with things that "'scary'" than with things that are terrifying, or even deadly. I only read the first sentence of your comment.

I think this "'scary'" rhetorical twitch is a tell. It means the speaker is indulging in a lefty daydream --or even wet dream-- about how neat it would be to run the world and have one's own impulsive feelings regarded as the most important thing in the world.

Lileks wrote recently about how people across the world rail against America because it is, ironically, the one nation from which they have nothing to fear, so there's no penalty.

It's like that.

Posted by: Crid at July 20, 2006 8:42 AM


I'm honoured. If you want constructive criticism, I'd say this:

  1. I find your language a bit flowery (too many fancy words like "canard") which makes your message harder to find.
  2. What exactly is your message? That this is a key point in history? Or that the history of the human race is really one about the battle of these two opposing forces? Or ...
  3. Punctuation matters - check out "it's" and "the other
    fellows religion" and several others.
  4. Grammar - "stir from under the somnolent spell that we
    had been snoozing under".
  5. Semantics - eg "exponentially" doesn't mean "a lot".
  6. Facts - is your picture of the dark ages, the renaissance, the enlightenment accurate? Did the wicked witch sprinkle a potion, or was it the poppies that sent Dorothy and her friends to sleep?

Now, go for it!

Posted by: Norman at July 20, 2006 8:51 AM

1. Canard is not in my comment

2. I don't love you enough to check spelling for you

3. I'm late for work and will respond more on saturday

4. Boo!

Haha! Scaredja!

Posted by: Crid at July 20, 2006 8:56 AM

Aw shit, Norman was for was for Chris.

It's great when Chris goes flowery, it makes me seem masculine in comparison

Y'all should Google George Will's 1999 review of a book called Y1K!

really late

Posted by: Crid at July 20, 2006 9:02 AM

Well, Amy, we now have 5, count 'em 5, Catholics as a majority on the US Supreme Court. After 18 years of rulings against it by courts at ALL levels, including the Supremes refusing to hear the case, justice Kennedy recently issued a stay to allow the Mt Soledad cross in San Diego to stay up so that more "legal" bullshit can take place. Now that 5 Pope/cross lovers adorn the Supreme Court bench, religion is now free to run amok in the US. It may be too late to turn the country around towards sanity. Even many of the Dems are afraid to stand up to the religious whack jobs. The upcoming November elections may provide a clue as to the future of our constitutional republic.

Posted by: Bill Henry at July 20, 2006 12:14 PM

As i haven't made this comment recently- i shalleth now. I have no interest in your critique of the pieces' grammar punc etc. None. What else is there to say. As for it being flowery-that's what all the dullards say when they cant understand what you've written. Actually this piece is somewhat toned down-to try to make it somewhat comprehensible for people such as youse.

Posted by: everybody hates chris at July 20, 2006 12:33 PM

Well, I wish the hand of "God" would pull their head out thier ass. I guess she's too busy trying to keep everyone's rosaries out of her ovaries.

SOS, um, the last "S" is for society.

Well in MI, the 10 Million Dollar campaign for DeGross is still churning, mightily backed by both the Western part of our State called Stepford, where the wives all look like good Christian news casters, and the children are hopped up on "mood controlling" ADHD drugs, more than any other area of the US...gotta keep em' all prim and poised, with the help of pharma of course. Hmm, I don't think Amway makes enough soap to wash the yick from me. DeGross has got the "ProLifers" behind him too, so there you go...

Sorry. I know my rant is a horrible post of English, but at least the passion is present. Possibly a bit of expression too, that is not all doe eyed and looking like another sheep going to make chops outta itself.

Posted by: sonja at July 20, 2006 6:46 PM

Sorry about the multiples, I kept getting a "server" area...oh if they would have only been orgasms.

Posted by: sonja at July 20, 2006 6:48 PM

Props to Crid. Oftentimes when I'm tempted to respond to one of the knee-jerk responses, I calmly remind myself that Crid will handle things with his familiar brevity.

Just so you know, Crid, I've co-opted one of your best and use the following regularly at get-togethers (it applies to nearly any erudite hysteria):

"Well, no not really. But its never too early to freak out!"

Posted by: snakeman99 at July 20, 2006 9:13 PM

>>Will there be a backlash against all this idiocy...or will America continue receding into religiousness?

There already is a backlash in public opinion -- witness the abysmal approval ratings of both GW Bush and Congress. The question is whether or not it will manifest itself at the ballot box this fall.

And I think it will. I know a lot of conservatives (fiscal conservatives, areligious people, or just plain moderates) who are furious with the current Republican leadership. I think these last two years of hubris, autocracy, paranoia, duplicity, and skull-sucking incompetence will be enough to push disgruntled Republicans into actually voting for Democratic candidates.

Perhaps this is wishful thinking, but the GOP didn't exactly win a landslide in 2004, and sixth-year elections are historically unkind to the party in the White House. We shall see.

Posted by: Gary S. at July 20, 2006 10:05 PM


My apologies - I thought you were posting here to get feedback before you sent it to AOL. Unwanted advice is unwelcome. My mistake.

Posted by: Norman at July 21, 2006 12:20 AM

The medieval and middle ages, as we refer to them, were times that all progress, all science, all medicine, at least as we knew it, simply stopped, and stopped dead. Why? Because the church imposed it’s religiosity on the entire
world and we fell into a deep sleep

Europe is not the whole world. During the Middle Ages, early rockets, Algebra, heliocentric and eliptical planetary orbit theories, zero and the precursors to Newton and Bacon all happened. This is only a very short list. Some of these areas were religious, while others were less so. It is ignorant and ethnocentric to say that science stopped during this time.

Newton and Darwin were very religious men. Newton spent more time studying religion than physics. Some of the most brilliant scientists I know are religious, they include cosmologists and geneticists.

Religion was the moral voice of the abolishonists and the civil rights era. And yes, I am aware that religion was also used to justify slavery. Pure, belief in science led to flawed theories regarding eugenics. Denial of scientific fact that has led to countless deaths is not limited to the religious, but to other groups, such as environmentalists (see: DDT and Africa).

To think that religion is the only thing holding back scientific progress is willfully ignorant. Politics, fear of change, profit from the status quo are all factors. Many times, religion will piggyback on these other issues as well.

Religion is neutral. It can be used for good or ill and history has examples of both.

* Einstein said he believed in Spinoza's god, Spinoza was a pantheist.

Posted by: Mo at July 21, 2006 12:56 AM

Is it safe to come out yet? Has Crid gone?

Posted by: Norman at July 21, 2006 1:26 AM


This is to take back what I said earlier. The tell isn't about a daydream of omnipotence, it's just about how people do clumsy things with language to the detriment of their own persuaion.

Happens to conservatives too.

Posted by: Crid at July 21, 2006 2:28 AM


Well, I'm coming out, ready or not! It's stuffy in this box. *pant, pant*

I'll retract a bit too, just to show good faith. :-) (Hope Amy doesn't see the smiley!) The "scary" comment was a bit of a kneejerk reaction on my part. "But its never too early to freak out!" probably describes it quite well. They keep telling us that this is not the time for undue panic. When will it be, I want to know. I'm getting edgy, waiting, always waiting.

Posted by: Norman at July 21, 2006 3:09 AM

Hello Amy's flying cadre of cocksuckers...
Another beautiful day here in SoCal.
Of the comments i read about my piece, the only one that actually dealt with the pieces ideas and content is Mo, so now Mo is the only one worthy of my response.
"Europe is not the whole world."
Jesus Christ...genius...
"Newton and Darwin were very religious men"
"To think that religion is the only thing holding scientific progress back"
Where o where did I say that?
"Einstein believed in Spinoza's god"
So? In any event he didn't. He made it quite clear in his letters that he was an atheist. As did Darwin in later life. As for Newton-you are right and it is sad-one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, lost to religion.
But I saved the best for last.
"REligion is neutral."
Smo-this is the most laughable comment I've heard in a long while. What you euphemistically refer to as religion is just dressed up primitive superstition. This superstition has been the plague of mankind, the plague of human progress. Or, in other words---it is a cleverly cooing, comfort giving canardious canard of colossal and downright big proportion.

Posted by: everybody hates chris at July 21, 2006 7:42 AM

Who knew that Federal funding for fetal stem cell research in lines not already in use before a few years ago was the same as "science"?

Because that's all the President veto'd - extending Federal funding for such research.

Fetal stem cell research? Not banned. Adult stem cell research? Not banned, and can get Federal money. Fetal stem cell research in those pre-legislation lines? Not banned, and can get Federal money.

But, hey, it's anti-Science to not throw tax dollars at eeverything. Thanks Ayn Rand Institute. That's the best part, to me. The Ayn Rand Institute complaining about restrictions on spending Federal money.

Evidently the State and coercive taxation for ends not supported by the Constitution are A-OK by ARI standards, as long as there's some exception that isn't clearly spelled out!

Posted by: Sigivald at July 21, 2006 3:30 PM

nice blog

Posted by: werty at July 28, 2006 6:35 AM

Leave a comment