Preachers like this make the world far worse than it has to be. They illustrate the disconnect between religion and morality. I suspect he would be the first guy to claim he was being persecuted the moment his sense of Christian privilege and entitlement was threatened. More than anything, he makes a compelling case for atheism, although there are far better ways of getting that message out.
I haven't listened to any of his rants, but judging from the descriptions Hemant has about Anderson, one is left with the impression that he doth protest too much.
Public school teachers get fired for exotic dancing. IIRC a cop was too. "Reputational harm" is the reason.
I smell a double standard. If 'reputational harm' is caused by an employee on their own time dancing nude, it is certainly caused by an employee on their own time calling for the murder of their coworkers.
You forget the cloak of Jesus protects him from that. He can just scream persecution and get his way. This is a case where the employer must tread very carefully. It’s been difficult enough to remove religionists who actively harass other workers with their hateful biblical views in private companies, it will be so much more difficult when he isn’t saying this at work for the government.
I don't have any experience with private sector corporations allowing one co-worker to religiously harass another 'because its religion.' In my very limited experience with just a few companies, it's not tolerated. You can put your bible quotes up on your cube wall. But repeated unwanted religious conversations? No dice. Heck any initiation of a religious discussion with a client or potential client is pretty much no dice, unless the client is previously known to want it. Because the corporation's god is more business, not Jesus.
So now more generally...it bothers me from a philosophical perspective that the 1A religious clauses are given more protection than the 1A speech/expression clauses, but as an empirical observation you're right, they are. At least by this SCOTUS.
I guess one way we could see if this is really a pro-religion bias or a pro-conservative values bias would be for some civil servant to 'religiously' dance nude on their own web site. :) If the courts really do favor 1A religion over 1A expression, then this would be more protected than dancing nude for money. OTOH if they say it's legit to fire such a person because it makes no difference whether they're doing it for religion or money the reputational harm is the same either way (but oh no! We can't fire this other person for calling for the death of gays!), then we know this is just the classic conservative bias where sex stuff is considered much more taboo than violence stuff.
Violence is revered in America, as I have deduced from watching most of the "Big Western" movies from Hollywood's Golden Age. Violence is glorified as the great noble manly answer to everything, where disputes were settled by manly men with rifles and six-shooters.
Yes there have been more recent movies and documentariesthat attempt to show the rigors of life on the frontier more realistically, and frame violence as the cause of human suffering rather than a glorious pursuit, but they will never be enough to overcome cultural conditioning and make violence taboo.
I was referring to the different stories about religious folks winning cases of discrimination that we have read here at FA. Southwest Airlines being the most recent example. That woman was attacking other employees over her rabid forced birth views and she was terminated but sued and had judgements go her way.
It shouldn’t be a problem for teachers to moonlight however they choose. But there has been a standard around it from the very beginning of public schooling in the USA. They were not allowed to date, to get married and continue to teach, or be pregnant, let alone the idea of allowing them to speak out publicly with their own opinions. Part of it is the misogyny and part of it is just religious prudishness (if we can really separate the two ideas).
This may be a good reason to let him go, he is a threat to his coworkers even if he’s not actively attacking them, but the way things are and have been, he will be protected by the judicial system because of “sincerely held religious beliefs” despite the harm to the community and society his sermons cause.
I'd say probably not a threat - cowardly blowhard looking to rake in donations by giving fundies a demagogic show, more like.
But the whole point of the 'reputational harm' argument is that a public agency can fire an employee whose personal conduct simply *reflects negatively* on the government. No violent threat needed. So for me this is a "both or neither" legal issue. Either a public agency can fire both using that argument, if we - society - think that's a carve out to the 1A we want to make. Or, if we don't want that carve out, then we should drop the "reflects negatively" argument altogether and fire neither. IMO. Which probably makes my opinion unpopular with both conservatives and progressives, since the partisan position is probably something like "of course the government can fire someone for negative conduct...so long as my political side gets to define what "negative" includes." :)
I agree he shouldn't be fired for his extracurricular activities any more than the teacher who dances in her underwear for strange men to make up for what the school system doesn't pay her.
But I don't agree that he's not a threat. Nor do I believe his sermons should get First Amendment protections, but we've had that argument multiple times and I don't feel like having it today.
No problem. What makes you think he's a violent threat though? Is there some conduct in his past that I'm missing? Police record Hemant didn't mention?
If the job didn't require a police background check already (it should have, cybersecurity is serious business), hopefully the news story will spur the city to start doing that for all cybersec employees. We are probably in agreement that there are many past criminal offenses which could make it reasonable to fire him from a cybersecurity job...and financial scams are a pretty common offense for televangelists.
Christian fucking privilege again. Imagine a Muslim employee engaging in this kind of off-the-clock hate mongering. If he wasn't fired outright, he'd be called on the carpet by HR or management for a major dressing down.
And possibly anti-gay bias. I suspect that if the subject of his 'line them up the wall and shoot them' rhetoric was blacks, women, or Jews, he'd probably already have been fired - because even if the agency eventually lost the lawsuit, they would right now fear that lawsuit less than the negative public opinion of keeping him on. Then again, this is Oklahoma, so maybe I'm wrong about that.
OT but kinda related...reading the Diddy trial coverage on CNN, the thought "wtf...why and how did he even come up with that idea??" often precedes the thought "that's horrible!" In some ways, their imagination is stranger than their evil.
If you think pornhub is wild, WRONG!!! It is Pablum compared to some sites. The human world of kink. Most vuifds now include "Downloaded to such&such dot com. Follow some of them. Weirdness rules. Like dressing as a clown with a vibrator up your kiester swinging from a chandelier while eating your partner there is a site for it.
There are four possible explanations for his virulent hatred.
One: he was molested by a man. And in his stunted brain and his shriveled heart, he either assumes that that man was a homosexual, and then blames every gay man, knows that man was, amd thus assumes all gay men are like that, or the man was extremely close to him, and thus he otherizes the experience because surely, his father-uncle-brother-favorite cousin could only be “other”. Dead Lou Sheldon on the Traditional Values coalition was one of those.
Two: there is something about himself that he knows is true, and equally, knows he cannot change. So he externalizes it, announces it, because that’s the only way he can control himself. Or deflect attention from himself— attention that no one is giving him, except by his own announcement.
Three: he’s just a total asshole—not to a malign a perfectly useful orifice.
This might fit into category 3, but it may be that he was brought up with the bigotry of religion regarding the LGBTQ community (or generally the social bigotry against them, using gay and the fword as a slur) and saw that he could gain notoriety and power by tapping into this hatred by starting a church based on it.
A generally nice person who is also a 1, 2, or brought up as a religious bigot like you suggest would think it but not say it. Maybe for them it comes out occasionally in personal conversation. Making a regular internet series of saying it? That's either a conman or a 3 (or bit o both).
OT: I heard from the Trevor Project that the proposed 2026 budget significantly reduces support for suicide prevention hotlines and especially programs targeted to LGBTQ individuals. Here's what Gemini gave me, anyone got any other arguments that don't involve telling them what I think of them as that would likely be counterproductive:
ubject: Urgent Concern Regarding Proposed Funding Cuts for Suicide Prevention in the 2026 Budget
Dear Senator [Cruz/Cornyn],
I am writing to you today as a concerned constituent from [Your City/Town], Texas, regarding the proposed funding cuts for suicide prevention hotlines and related programs in the 2026 federal budget. I urge you to reconsider these reductions and advocate for continued, robust funding for these critical services.
Suicide is a devastating public health crisis that affects families and communities across Texas and the nation. These prevention hotlines and programs provide a vital lifeline to individuals in despair, offering immediate support and connecting them with essential mental health resources. Investing in these services is not only a moral imperative but also a fiscally responsible decision, as preventing suicides can avert significant long-term costs associated with emergency services, healthcare, and lost productivity.
While all suicide prevention efforts are crucial, I want to specifically highlight the critical need for programs tailored to vulnerable populations, including LGBTQ+ individuals. Research consistently shows that LGBTQ+ youth and adults face disproportionately higher rates of suicidal ideation and attempts due to unique stressors such as discrimination, bullying, and lack of family or social support. Programs designed to address these specific challenges are demonstrably effective in providing targeted support and saving lives within this community.
As your constituent, I believe it is essential that all Texans have access to the mental health support they need, regardless of their background or identity. Protecting our most vulnerable citizens benefits everyone, strengthening our communities and ensuring a healthier future for our state.
I respectfully request that you champion continued funding for suicide prevention services, including those specifically designed to support LGBTQ+ individuals, in the upcoming budget negotiations. Your support for these vital programs would demonstrate a commitment to the well-being of all Texans.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this urgent matter. I look forward to your response and hope you will prioritize this critical issue.
I want to write an e-mail to my senators (Cruz and Cornyn) about proposed funding cuts in the 2026 budget for suicide prevention hotlines and especially programs tailored to LGBTQ people. The problem is both Senators are known to be anti-LGBTQ, so I'm not sure how to frame it beside "As much as you are against LGBTQ activities, you are surely not so hateful as to be willing to see people die."
This is why if a Cracker Barrel goes out of business, you must immediately raze the building and salt the ground. If you let it stand, it will become infested with independent Baptist preachers. Also, fuck him.
I believe that is the official uniform for kitchen workers and bathroom cleaners at Taco Bell..,. Who am I kidding? There are no bathroom cleaners at Taco Bell.
I have more problem with Alfredo dishes than anything I've had from Taco Bell. And for about 3 years during and after the pandemic I ate lunch there nearly daily.
"They should be lined up against the wall and shot in the back of the head! That's what God teaches. That's what the Bible says."
I'd like to know which book, chapter and verse in the bible mentions that firearms must be used. Does the bible also specifies what bullet size should be used? I suppose a .45 should be ok, because a 9 mm uses satanic units. If there is no good American AR-15 available, does the bible permits the use of a communist AK-47?
His words might actually mean something if the United States were an official xtian theocracy and not a nation under a Constitution that prohibits establishment of religion.
NIFB assholes like this also hate the RCC. They think the Catholics are actively worshipping Satan. I wonder what this bigot would say when it is pointed out to him that women aren't allowed to preach in the RCC either, specifically because of the same passages he relies on to rail against women preaching? The RCC position is also anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQIA+. Tell him, to his face, that we see no difference between him and the Catholics. Watch him squirm.
Christians have fought entire wars between sects over minor points of theological doctrine that aren't written anywhere in their holy book; they only acknowledge each other's sects as valid when they need to band together to hurt 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 instead.
Baptists sure do love to emulate the RCC, a sect they claim to hate.
They seem especially keen on catching up to Holy Mother Church in the number of children their clergy molests. Sorry, but the Catholic Church has a nearly-two millennia head start.
They hate a hierarchy that takes work, time and training to rise through, because they can't immediately place themselves at the top of it. But all the bad stuff that hierarchy does? That's *why* they want to place themselves at the top.
From the outside looking in, about the only real differences seem to be the veneration of saints and the size of the bank accounts. The baptists seem to be starting the veneration with Reagan and Trump, and they will never catch the RCC on bank accounts. The RCC has looted several countries, the Baptists only have the limited pockets of the rubes they sucker in.
NIFB does not believe in transubstantiation. Nor do they believe in wine, when they celebrate the last supper (once or twice a year), it's grape juice and saltines.
So he is like those mild-mannered serial killers, who the neighbors say was " a quiet man, and kept to himself."
He obviously knows his lies are wrong, or he would espouse them at work. Most religious orgs nowadays tolerate, and some even encourage his propaganda.
Oh, and only actual pedophilic child abuse victims, or perpetrators obsess about it as much as he does. I expect he'll show up on Evan Hurst's "religious men who abuse" women, boys and girls list.
There are no general coms problems here in Pinellas county. Internet is up, cell towers are ok. If I knew where to check, I would go but I don't know how to find him
Preachers like this make the world far worse than it has to be. They illustrate the disconnect between religion and morality. I suspect he would be the first guy to claim he was being persecuted the moment his sense of Christian privilege and entitlement was threatened. More than anything, he makes a compelling case for atheism, although there are far better ways of getting that message out.
I haven't listened to any of his rants, but judging from the descriptions Hemant has about Anderson, one is left with the impression that he doth protest too much.
Just maybe. Knowhutimean?
He certainly wouldn't be the first over-compensating closet-case the world ever saw.
He's definitely a kiddy-diddler. They are always projecting.
Yup. Pointed out that very hypocrisy about 3 minutes before you posted.
They love them some death to others, but flip the script on them and they have the gall to get indignant.
My bad. I usually don't read the other posts before I post.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
Shame on you. ;)
Oh, you two! Get a room, fer petesake! 🤣
😁
I'm incorragible.
THEISM in all its forms makes me SICK.
He thinks that his AVERAGE EVERY-DAY sinners are OK. What a GROSS individual he is.
𝐼𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑔𝑢𝑦 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑗𝑜𝑏 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑠 ℎ𝑖𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑓𝑠 𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒, ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑎𝑛’𝑡 𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑦 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒.
Public school teachers get fired for exotic dancing. IIRC a cop was too. "Reputational harm" is the reason.
I smell a double standard. If 'reputational harm' is caused by an employee on their own time dancing nude, it is certainly caused by an employee on their own time calling for the murder of their coworkers.
You forget the cloak of Jesus protects him from that. He can just scream persecution and get his way. This is a case where the employer must tread very carefully. It’s been difficult enough to remove religionists who actively harass other workers with their hateful biblical views in private companies, it will be so much more difficult when he isn’t saying this at work for the government.
I don't have any experience with private sector corporations allowing one co-worker to religiously harass another 'because its religion.' In my very limited experience with just a few companies, it's not tolerated. You can put your bible quotes up on your cube wall. But repeated unwanted religious conversations? No dice. Heck any initiation of a religious discussion with a client or potential client is pretty much no dice, unless the client is previously known to want it. Because the corporation's god is more business, not Jesus.
So now more generally...it bothers me from a philosophical perspective that the 1A religious clauses are given more protection than the 1A speech/expression clauses, but as an empirical observation you're right, they are. At least by this SCOTUS.
I guess one way we could see if this is really a pro-religion bias or a pro-conservative values bias would be for some civil servant to 'religiously' dance nude on their own web site. :) If the courts really do favor 1A religion over 1A expression, then this would be more protected than dancing nude for money. OTOH if they say it's legit to fire such a person because it makes no difference whether they're doing it for religion or money the reputational harm is the same either way (but oh no! We can't fire this other person for calling for the death of gays!), then we know this is just the classic conservative bias where sex stuff is considered much more taboo than violence stuff.
Violence is revered in America, as I have deduced from watching most of the "Big Western" movies from Hollywood's Golden Age. Violence is glorified as the great noble manly answer to everything, where disputes were settled by manly men with rifles and six-shooters.
Yes there have been more recent movies and documentariesthat attempt to show the rigors of life on the frontier more realistically, and frame violence as the cause of human suffering rather than a glorious pursuit, but they will never be enough to overcome cultural conditioning and make violence taboo.
I was referring to the different stories about religious folks winning cases of discrimination that we have read here at FA. Southwest Airlines being the most recent example. That woman was attacking other employees over her rabid forced birth views and she was terminated but sued and had judgements go her way.
It shouldn’t be a problem for teachers to moonlight however they choose. But there has been a standard around it from the very beginning of public schooling in the USA. They were not allowed to date, to get married and continue to teach, or be pregnant, let alone the idea of allowing them to speak out publicly with their own opinions. Part of it is the misogyny and part of it is just religious prudishness (if we can really separate the two ideas).
This may be a good reason to let him go, he is a threat to his coworkers even if he’s not actively attacking them, but the way things are and have been, he will be protected by the judicial system because of “sincerely held religious beliefs” despite the harm to the community and society his sermons cause.
I'd say probably not a threat - cowardly blowhard looking to rake in donations by giving fundies a demagogic show, more like.
But the whole point of the 'reputational harm' argument is that a public agency can fire an employee whose personal conduct simply *reflects negatively* on the government. No violent threat needed. So for me this is a "both or neither" legal issue. Either a public agency can fire both using that argument, if we - society - think that's a carve out to the 1A we want to make. Or, if we don't want that carve out, then we should drop the "reflects negatively" argument altogether and fire neither. IMO. Which probably makes my opinion unpopular with both conservatives and progressives, since the partisan position is probably something like "of course the government can fire someone for negative conduct...so long as my political side gets to define what "negative" includes." :)
I agree he shouldn't be fired for his extracurricular activities any more than the teacher who dances in her underwear for strange men to make up for what the school system doesn't pay her.
But I don't agree that he's not a threat. Nor do I believe his sermons should get First Amendment protections, but we've had that argument multiple times and I don't feel like having it today.
No problem. What makes you think he's a violent threat though? Is there some conduct in his past that I'm missing? Police record Hemant didn't mention?
If the job didn't require a police background check already (it should have, cybersecurity is serious business), hopefully the news story will spur the city to start doing that for all cybersec employees. We are probably in agreement that there are many past criminal offenses which could make it reasonable to fire him from a cybersecurity job...and financial scams are a pretty common offense for televangelists.
Christian fucking privilege again. Imagine a Muslim employee engaging in this kind of off-the-clock hate mongering. If he wasn't fired outright, he'd be called on the carpet by HR or management for a major dressing down.
And possibly anti-gay bias. I suspect that if the subject of his 'line them up the wall and shoot them' rhetoric was blacks, women, or Jews, he'd probably already have been fired - because even if the agency eventually lost the lawsuit, they would right now fear that lawsuit less than the negative public opinion of keeping him on. Then again, this is Oklahoma, so maybe I'm wrong about that.
"...all homosexuals are pedophiles."
Homosexuals is an odd way of spelling "clergy."
It's an anogram.
I misread that as analgram.
worst signing telegram ever. Or possibly the best.
Yes, it's always projection.
If this death cult had their hatred turned back on them by others, the cult would scream PERSECUTION!!!
As a gay guy, I don’t spend half as much time thinking about what other guys do with their junk as these “godly, heterosexual xtian men “ do.
Terabytes of Gay porn--er, "research" hidden deeply in his abfab closet.
OT but kinda related...reading the Diddy trial coverage on CNN, the thought "wtf...why and how did he even come up with that idea??" often precedes the thought "that's horrible!" In some ways, their imagination is stranger than their evil.
If you think pornhub is wild, WRONG!!! It is Pablum compared to some sites. The human world of kink. Most vuifds now include "Downloaded to such&such dot com. Follow some of them. Weirdness rules. Like dressing as a clown with a vibrator up your kiester swinging from a chandelier while eating your partner there is a site for it.
Rule 34.
???
"Rule 34: If it exists, there is porn for it."
Specifically:
34. There is porn of it, no exceptions
35. If no porn is found at the moment, it will be made
36. If you’ve thought of it, then there’s somebody out there with a fetish for it
https://pop-culture.net/47-rules-internet
Absolutely!
There are four possible explanations for his virulent hatred.
One: he was molested by a man. And in his stunted brain and his shriveled heart, he either assumes that that man was a homosexual, and then blames every gay man, knows that man was, amd thus assumes all gay men are like that, or the man was extremely close to him, and thus he otherizes the experience because surely, his father-uncle-brother-favorite cousin could only be “other”. Dead Lou Sheldon on the Traditional Values coalition was one of those.
Two: there is something about himself that he knows is true, and equally, knows he cannot change. So he externalizes it, announces it, because that’s the only way he can control himself. Or deflect attention from himself— attention that no one is giving him, except by his own announcement.
Three: he’s just a total asshole—not to a malign a perfectly useful orifice.
Four: all three.
This might fit into category 3, but it may be that he was brought up with the bigotry of religion regarding the LGBTQ community (or generally the social bigotry against them, using gay and the fword as a slur) and saw that he could gain notoriety and power by tapping into this hatred by starting a church based on it.
That to, although it comes under the heading of “asshole”.
It's different from 3, but he's definitely a 3.
A generally nice person who is also a 1, 2, or brought up as a religious bigot like you suggest would think it but not say it. Maybe for them it comes out occasionally in personal conversation. Making a regular internet series of saying it? That's either a conman or a 3 (or bit o both).
Another hatriot. A mouth full of scripture and a heart full of hate.
OT: I heard from the Trevor Project that the proposed 2026 budget significantly reduces support for suicide prevention hotlines and especially programs targeted to LGBTQ individuals. Here's what Gemini gave me, anyone got any other arguments that don't involve telling them what I think of them as that would likely be counterproductive:
ubject: Urgent Concern Regarding Proposed Funding Cuts for Suicide Prevention in the 2026 Budget
Dear Senator [Cruz/Cornyn],
I am writing to you today as a concerned constituent from [Your City/Town], Texas, regarding the proposed funding cuts for suicide prevention hotlines and related programs in the 2026 federal budget. I urge you to reconsider these reductions and advocate for continued, robust funding for these critical services.
Suicide is a devastating public health crisis that affects families and communities across Texas and the nation. These prevention hotlines and programs provide a vital lifeline to individuals in despair, offering immediate support and connecting them with essential mental health resources. Investing in these services is not only a moral imperative but also a fiscally responsible decision, as preventing suicides can avert significant long-term costs associated with emergency services, healthcare, and lost productivity.
While all suicide prevention efforts are crucial, I want to specifically highlight the critical need for programs tailored to vulnerable populations, including LGBTQ+ individuals. Research consistently shows that LGBTQ+ youth and adults face disproportionately higher rates of suicidal ideation and attempts due to unique stressors such as discrimination, bullying, and lack of family or social support. Programs designed to address these specific challenges are demonstrably effective in providing targeted support and saving lives within this community.
As your constituent, I believe it is essential that all Texans have access to the mental health support they need, regardless of their background or identity. Protecting our most vulnerable citizens benefits everyone, strengthening our communities and ensuring a healthier future for our state.
I respectfully request that you champion continued funding for suicide prevention services, including those specifically designed to support LGBTQ+ individuals, in the upcoming budget negotiations. Your support for these vital programs would demonstrate a commitment to the well-being of all Texans.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this urgent matter. I look forward to your response and hope you will prioritize this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Good stuff. Let's hope they can be bothered to LISTEN. 👂
GOOD LUCK with that ideaa. Their hatred is from god
Just an FYI, this is the prompt I used:
I want to write an e-mail to my senators (Cruz and Cornyn) about proposed funding cuts in the 2026 budget for suicide prevention hotlines and especially programs tailored to LGBTQ people. The problem is both Senators are known to be anti-LGBTQ, so I'm not sure how to frame it beside "As much as you are against LGBTQ activities, you are surely not so hateful as to be willing to see people die."
They read it and go, "uh yeah, that's the point."
Yep, looks like a guy who's definitely got a white hood on his hat rack.
This is why if a Cracker Barrel goes out of business, you must immediately raze the building and salt the ground. If you let it stand, it will become infested with independent Baptist preachers. Also, fuck him.
Suit yourself
https://images.app.goo.gl/428DnMf5s9xvzvhh6
I believe that is the official uniform for kitchen workers and bathroom cleaners at Taco Bell..,. Who am I kidding? There are no bathroom cleaners at Taco Bell.
To anyone who eats anything from Taco Bell:
You’ll be dropping chalupas you didn’t order.
It's useful for battling constipation.
I have more problem with Alfredo dishes than anything I've had from Taco Bell. And for about 3 years during and after the pandemic I ate lunch there nearly daily.
Somebody is angry.
https://youtu.be/tQGbCZ-71Uk
"They should be lined up against the wall and shot in the back of the head! That's what God teaches. That's what the Bible says."
I'd like to know which book, chapter and verse in the bible mentions that firearms must be used. Does the bible also specifies what bullet size should be used? I suppose a .45 should be ok, because a 9 mm uses satanic units. If there is no good American AR-15 available, does the bible permits the use of a communist AK-47?
Book of Armaments, chapter two, verses one through eight.
Right? I was going to say something similar. Is there a book of the bible that I missed that mentions this. The Gospel According to St. Smith Wesson?
I heard that in President Bartlett’s voice.
"That's what God teaches. That's what the Bible says."
That's actually a criticism of God and the Bible (to normal people, anyway).
His words might actually mean something if the United States were an official xtian theocracy and not a nation under a Constitution that prohibits establishment of religion.
It's also a falsehood. Dude's lying, he's going to Hell.
Only if Norway doesn't ban him.
He seems...like a flaming asshole.
Asshole, most certainly. Hopefully someone will take care of the 'flaming' bit; burn pits have their uses.
He thinks his sermons are just faaaaa-bu-louuuuus!
The louder the hate, the deeper the closet.
NIFB assholes like this also hate the RCC. They think the Catholics are actively worshipping Satan. I wonder what this bigot would say when it is pointed out to him that women aren't allowed to preach in the RCC either, specifically because of the same passages he relies on to rail against women preaching? The RCC position is also anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQIA+. Tell him, to his face, that we see no difference between him and the Catholics. Watch him squirm.
Christians have fought entire wars between sects over minor points of theological doctrine that aren't written anywhere in their holy book; they only acknowledge each other's sects as valid when they need to band together to hurt 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 instead.
I call that schrodinger’s Christianity. “They” aren’t Christian except when we want big numbers. Then by god we are a majority Christian nation.
Like the rapture and Mormonism, it is just fan-fiction.
Baptists sure do love to emulate the RCC, a sect they claim to hate.
They seem especially keen on catching up to Holy Mother Church in the number of children their clergy molests. Sorry, but the Catholic Church has a nearly-two millennia head start.
They hate a hierarchy that takes work, time and training to rise through, because they can't immediately place themselves at the top of it. But all the bad stuff that hierarchy does? That's *why* they want to place themselves at the top.
From the outside looking in, about the only real differences seem to be the veneration of saints and the size of the bank accounts. The baptists seem to be starting the veneration with Reagan and Trump, and they will never catch the RCC on bank accounts. The RCC has looted several countries, the Baptists only have the limited pockets of the rubes they sucker in.
That's why they are working so hard trying to catch up.
NIFB does not believe in transubstantiation. Nor do they believe in wine, when they celebrate the last supper (once or twice a year), it's grape juice and saltines.
NIFB. The Strip Mall Church of Empty Folding Chairs. Their congregation mostly consists of hate-filled anonymous online knuckledraggers.
The problem is they're online, constantly validating themselves and other bigots.
And, since this is America, they have guns.
Yes it is a given they are ammosexuals.
And xtians continue to whine "Why do they hate us so?"
You could tell them to look in a mirror but it wouldn't do any good. They don't have reflections.
Xtians truly are blood suckers.
They definitely lack the capacity for 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧-reflection. Or, at least, any interest in it.
So he is like those mild-mannered serial killers, who the neighbors say was " a quiet man, and kept to himself."
He obviously knows his lies are wrong, or he would espouse them at work. Most religious orgs nowadays tolerate, and some even encourage his propaganda.
Oh, and only actual pedophilic child abuse victims, or perpetrators obsess about it as much as he does. I expect he'll show up on Evan Hurst's "religious men who abuse" women, boys and girls list.
Natalie, do you live in Florida ?
Yes, I do.
Did you have any Internet problems the pasts few days ?
Sorry for the questions. Zorg' is MIA.
I hope he is okay.
That's the problem, I can only contact him here or by email.
No, but the community in which I live put in high speed fiber optic cable, and I’m surrounded my republicans.
There are no general coms problems here in Pinellas county. Internet is up, cell towers are ok. If I knew where to check, I would go but I don't know how to find him