Church sign slideshow

16 08 2010

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


Interesting Article on Offensive Religous Movies (Top Ten)

6 08 2010

Movies don’t try to please everyone. Tailor-made for certain demographics, some filmmakers try to entertain or provoke discussion, knowing full well their movie will offend a particular group. The most inflammatory of these movies attempt to question taboos, rituals and customs of many of the world’s most popular religions.

Some films bolster the beliefs of certain religions either intentionally or unintentionally through offending its audience. For instance, the first “Exorcist” film which took advantage of the big “Satanism” movie genre of the 1970’s literally scared churchgoers back into the pews. Those aren’t the movies I’m talking about here.

The movies in this list fully expected and possibly depended upon offending certain religions in order to succeed. Sometimes the film in question preys upon longstanding fears and prejudices in order to make a point. Here are 10 movies designed to offend your (or someone else’s) religious beliefs (Note: The Small Town Critic does not endorse or defend any of the viewpoints these films present)…

10. TEARS OF KALI (2004)
• Whom does it offend? – Hindus, Eastern Indians, New Age practitioners

The German horror effort “Tears of Kali” relies on xenophobia to achieve its scares. The influx of Indian immigration into the country has apparently lead to concerns by indigenous Germans that the Indian cultural “new age” influence will lead to an increase in cultish activity, mysticism and worship of unsavory deities. While any country with a healthy Indian population would quickly dispel this as a nonsensical fear, the wily German creators of this film seem intent on capitalizing on this knee-jerk reaction to cultural exchange.

9. HELLRAISER (1987)
• Whom does it offend? – All faiths who believe in heaven and hell

While it might seem like a simple tale of good vs. evil, “Hellraiser” has a more subversive underlying message. It appears to suggest no clear heaven or hell exists and that pleasure and pain are indivisible. While you might suffer at first at the hands of the frightening “Cenobites,” over time the torture – which is your only source of stimulation – will eventually become your pleasure and therefore your heaven. While most devotees would probably concern themselves more with the gore and blasphemous imagery, few would notice the more controversial concept of this tale.

8. STIGMATA (1999)
• Whom does it offend? – Catholicism

At the time of its release, “Stigmata” did not draw near as much controversy as its box-office competitor “Dogma.” While many criticized the comedic satire of Kevin Smith’s “Dogma” (a strangely pro-Catholic movie), few even questioned the potentially destructive message of “Stigmata.” The film concerns a woman (Patricia Arquette) who, afflicted by the gift/curse of stigmata, uncovers a lost chapter of the Bible in which Jesus discourages his followers from buying into organized religion and churches, stating that they are not needed to achieve a place in heaven, only belief is necessary. This of course enrages the (fictional) Vatican who attempts to destroy this damaging epistle; however, the real Vatican felt ignoring this movie was its best strategy.

7. FRAILTY (2001)
• Whom does it offend? – Fundamental Protestants


When a loving single father (Bill Paxton) in rural Texas suddenly informs his two pre-teen sons of a divine vision in which an angel instructs him to “slay demons,” the older son must find a way to stop his father from killing seemingly harmless members of the community. This film addresses the idea of “blind faith” as a frightening and dangerous concept. While the creepy, Twilight Zone-like ending of the film sends mixed messages about its intentions, the film does encourage viewers to question religious cannon rather than obeying without argument… An idea that’s sure to offend the most fundamental of Christian religions.

• Whom does it offend? – Practitioners of primal-indiginous Caribbean/African religions (including Voodoo and Santeria)

While many might be quick to condemn these religions as pagan and possibly even Satanic, few realize their deep cultural roots and relationship to Christianity which the practitioners often worship simultaneously. The story involves a widowed father (Martin Sheen) who falls into a dangerous cult of white collar businessmen who gain power and wealth from pagan African gods by sacrificing their firstborn children. Another film that relies on xenophobia and racial (black) fears, the film suggests that religious immigrant influence will corrupt the social and religious fabric of America. It punctuates this point in the chilling final scene where the heroine (Helen Shaver) casually sacrifices an entire barnyard full of animals to ensure the future well being of her family.

• Whom does it offend? – Buddhists

This award-winner was slammed for its content that portrays Buddhists in Sri Lanka as a genocidal society who engaged in ethnic warfare with the (Muslim/Christian) Tamils. While the winning side of such battles usually draws the ire of the international community for committing war crimes, demonizing a largely peaceful religion can be considered a low blow. While there are no clear villains or heroes to Westerners in this very real and tragic chapter in Sri Lanka history, Buddhists consider this film one-sided and unfairly misrepresentative of their ways.

• Whom does it offend? – Catholicism and some aspects of Christianity

This one-two punch from author Dan Brown prompted the Vatican to declare its sovereign grounds off limits to director Ron Howard while shooting these films. “The DaVinci Code” suggests that the Holy Roman Church has suppressed information about Jesus that would undermine their control and would willingly murder to keep it a secret. “Angels and Demons” further suggests the Church is also politically corrupt, needlessly dogmatic and defunct due to internal power struggles. Add a bit of sci-fi and mysticism and there’s no wonder why the Catholic Church is vexed by this franchise.

3. MARTYRS (2008)
• Whom does it offend? – Christians

This shocking French horror film (review here) starts as a bloody revenge flick then suddenly surprises viewers by turning into a philosophical thriller with a controversial religious message. The change happens halfway through and ventures into similar territory as “Frailty.” It presents the idea that the search for divinity can be paved with justifiable atrocities… that others can be sacrificed in order to obtain proof that not only does God exists, but that he rewards abominable behavior as long as it’s in his name. This very dangerous concept results in a haunting ending that’s both infuriating and thought provoking.

• Whom does it offend? – Judaism

Mel Gibson’s pro-Christian masterpiece of the last days of Jesus Christ did not emerge from the box office unscathed by critics. Allegations that the film portrayed Jews as villainous stereotypes prompted protests from the Jewish community far and wide. Drunken anti-Semitic remarks made by Gibson himself added additional fuel to the media firestorm. The graphic brutality inflicted upon Jesus (Jim Caviezel) at the hand of the Jews and the Roman soldiers, as portrayed in the film, elicited disgust and outrage from Christian audiences. Activists in support of Judaism say the film has ignited a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Christians across the world, a claim that some (but not all) Christians and fans of the film deny.

• Whom does it offend? – Christians

This Martin Scorsese picture (adapted from the famously-banned book by Kikos Kazantzakis) drew fire from Christian activists long before it appeared in the theaters. The story shows Jesus’ last days from his perspective. The crux of the controversy stemmed from the idea that Jesus was subject to human emotions and felt tempted to sin on numerous occasions, but never did despite a dream sequence which depicts him having sex with Mary Magdaline. While critics lavished the film with awards, enraged devotees still universally condemn it despite its otherwise painting the religion in a positive light. Other films have sense eclipsed it in terms of supposed “blasphemous” content, but none have equaled its unprecedented level of public outrage.


I love true Genius….

6 08 2010

Cash, Coochie or Cock: A List of Fallen Evangelists

3 08 2010

All of these are listed on Wikipedia, if you want the skinny … but it really does come down to cash, coochie or cock.  “Offerings” will be unique in that it’s an excess of faith that ends up doing in some of the characters.  These folks are worth a gander anyway:

Aimee Semple McPherson, 20’s-40′s.  Lonnie Frisbee, 70’s-80’s.  Billy James Hargis, early 70’s.  Jim & Tammy Bakker, ’86.  Jimmy Swaggart, ’91.  Peter Popoff, ’87.  Morris Cerullo, 90’s.  Mike Warnke, ’91.  Robert Tilton, ’91.  WV Grant, ’96 & ’03.  Roy Clements, ’99.  John Paulk, ’00.  Paul Crouch, ’04.  Douglas Goodman, ’04.  Kent Hovind, ’06.  Ted Haggard, ’06.  Paul Barnes, ’06.  Lonnie Latham, ’06.  Gilbert Deya, ’06.  Richard Roberts, ’07.  Earl Paulk, ’07.  Coy Privette, ’07.  Thomas Wesley Weeks III, ’07.  Michael Reid, ’08.  Joe Barron, ’08.  Todd Bentley, ’08.  Tony Alamo, ’08.  George Alan Rekers, ’10…

And you know this has got to be a partial list, only those evangelists who had a somewhat national reputation.  Take a minute to imagine all the little churches dotting the American landscape from shore to shore.  Can you imagine how many skeletons have been unearthed  over the decades.  In my small hometown — population around 6500 at the time I was grew up there — I can remember two pretty massive scandals.  A youth pastor with a predilection for 15 year old girls and an Episcopal minister with a taste for other men’s wives.  True, these aren’t stories that make the papers, but everybody can remember these sorts of things.

How do people keep their faith, I wonder, when it’s so blatantly obvious that the “transformative” power of Christ does nothing to change our basic human natures?  Generation after generation being let down by their clergy and lining up at the pulpit to get yet one more serving of crackers and juice! … At the very least you’d expect them to demand a faith that incorporates true human characteristics into its theology.  But then what would become of the magical pixie dust that is the Holy Spirit?

God is Not Great – Part 2 – Religion Poisons EVERYTHING

27 07 2010

Oh blessed Ronald! PLEASE lord, bring back the McRibb..

 There are four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking.

I do not think it is arrogant of me to claim that I had already discovered these four objections (as well as noticed the more vulgar and obvious fact that religion is used by those in temporal charge to invest themselves with authority) before my boyish voice had broken. I am morally certain that millions of other people came to very similar conclusions in very much the same way, and I have since met such people in hundreds of places, and in dozens of different countries. Many of them never believed, and many of them abandoned faith after a difficult struggle. Some of them had blinding moments of un-conviction that were every bit as instantaneous, though perhaps less epileptic and apocalyptic (and later more rationally and more morally justified) than Saul of Tarsus on the Damascene road. And here is the point, about myself and my co-thinkers. Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. We do not hold our convictions dogmatically: the disagreement between Professor Stephen Jay Gould and Professor Richard Dawkins, concerning “punctuated evolution” and the unfilled gaps in post-Darwinian theory, is quite wide as well as quite deep, but we shall resolve it by evidence and reasoning and not by mutual excommunication. (My own annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called “brights,” is a part of a continuous argument.) We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical morality tales of the holy books. Literature, not scripture, sustains the mind and—since there is no other metaphor—also the soul. We do not believe in heaven or hell, yet no statistic will ever find that without these blandishments and threats we commit more crimes of greed or violence than the faithful. (In fact, if a proper statistical inquiry could ever be made, I am sure the evidence would be the other way.) We are reconciled to living only once, except through our children, for whom we are perfectly happy to notice that we must make way, and room. We speculate that it is at least possible that, once people accepted the fact of their short and struggling lives, they might behave better toward each other and not worse. We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true—that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow.

Most important of all, perhaps, we infidels do not need any machinery of reinforcement. We are those who Blaise Pascal took into account when he wrote to the one who says, “I am so made that I cannot believe.”

There is no need for us to gather every day, or every seven days, or on any high and auspicious day, to proclaim our rectitude or to grovel and wallow in our unworthiness. We atheists do not require any priests, or any hierarchy above them, to police our doctrine. Sacrifices and ceremonies are abhorrent to us, as are relics and the worship of any images or objects (even including objects in the form of one of man’s most useful innovations: the bound book). To us no spot on earth is or could be “holier” than another: to the ostentatious absurdity of the pilgrimage, or the plain horror of killing civilians in the name of some sacred wall or cave or shrine or rock, we can counterpose a leisurely or urgent walk from one side of the library or the gallery to another, or to lunch with an agreeable friend, in pursuit of truth or beauty. Some of these excursions to the bookshelf or the lunch or the gallery will obviously, if they are serious, bring us into contact with belief and believers, from the great devotional painters and composers to the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Newman. These mighty scholars may have written many evil things or many foolish things, and been laughably ignorant of the germ theory of disease or the place of the terrestrial globe in the solar system, let alone the universe, and this is the plain reason why there are no more of them today, and why there will be no more of them tomorrow. Religion spoke its last intelligible or noble or inspiring words a long time ago: either that or it mutated into an admirable but nebulous humanism, as did, say, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a brave Lutheran pastor hanged by the Nazis for his refusal to collude with them. We shall have no more prophets or sages from the ancient quarter, which is why the devotions of today are only the echoing repetitions of yesterday, sometimes ratcheted up to screaming point so as to ward off the terrible emptiness.

While some religious apology is magnificent in its limited way—one might cite Pascal—and some of it is dreary and absurd—here one cannot avoid naming C. S. Lewis—both styles have something in common, namely the appalling load of strain that they have to bear. How much effort it takes to affirm the incredible! The Aztecs had to tear open a human chest cavity every day just to make sure that the sun would rise. Monotheists are supposed to pester their deity more times than that, perhaps, lest he be deaf. How much vanity must be concealed—not too effectively at that—in order to pretend that one is the personal object of a divine plan? How much self-respect must be sacrificed in order that one may squirm continually in an awareness of one’s own sin? How many needless assumptions must be made, and how much contortion is required, to receive every new insight of science and manipulate it so as to “fit” with the revealed words of ancient man-made deities? How many saints and miracles and councils and conclaves are required in order first to be able to establish a dogma and then—after infinite pain and loss and absurdity and cruelty—to be forced to rescind one of those dogmas? God did not create man in his own image. Evidently, it was the other way about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilization.

The mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did. Still less can they hope to tell us the “meaning” of later discoveries and developments which were, when they began, either obstructed by their religions or denounced by them. And yet—the believers still claim to know! Not just to know, but to know everything. Not just to know that god exists, and that he created and supervised the whole enterprise, but also to know what “he” demands of us—from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality. In other words, in a vast and complicated discussion where we know more and more about less and less, yet can still hope for some enlightenment as we proceed, one faction—itself composed of mutually warring factions—has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we already have all the essential information we need. Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude “belief” from the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted.

The argument with faith is the foundation and origin of all arguments, because it is the beginning—but not the end—of all arguments about philosophy, science, history, and human nature. It is also the beginning—but by no means the end—of all disputes about the good life and the just city. Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable. It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other. For this reason, I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could. Very generous of me, you may say. But will the religious grant me the same indulgence? I ask because there is a real and serious difference between me and my religious friends, and the real and serious friends are sufficiently honest to admit it. I would be quite content to go to their children’s bar mitzvahs, to marvel at their Gothic cathedrals, to “respect” their belief that the Koran was dictated, though exclusively in Arabic, to an illiterate merchant, or to interest myself in Wicca and Hindu and Jain consolations. And as it happens, I will continue to do this without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition—which is that they in turn leave me alone. But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing. As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.

God is Not Great, Excerpts Part 1 – Mormon Mafia

27 07 2010

Who, Me?

If the followers of the prophet Muhammad hoped to put an end to any future “revelations” after the immaculate conception of the Koran, they reckoned without the founder of what is now one of the world’s fastest-growing faiths. And they did not foresee (how could they, mammals as they were?) that the prophet of this ridiculous cult would model himself on theirs. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—hereafter known as the Mormons—was founded by a gifted opportunist who, despite couching his text in openly plagiarized Christian terms, announced that “I shall be to this generation a new Muhammad” and adopted as his fighting slogan the words, which he thought he had learned from Islam, “Either the Al-Koran or the sword.” He was too ignorant to know that if you use the word al you do not need another definite article, but then he did resemble Muhammad in being able only to make a borrowing out of other people’s bibles.

In March 1826 a court in Bainbridge, New York, convicted a twenty-one-year-old man of being “a disorderly person and an impostor.” That ought to have been all we ever heard of Joseph Smith, who at trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad gold-digging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or “necromantic” powers. However, within four years he was back in the local newspapers (all of which one may still read) as the discoverer of the “Book of Mormon.” He had two huge local advantages which most mountebanks and charlatans do not possess. First, he was operating in the same hectically pious district that gave us the Shakers and several other self-proclaimed American prophets. So notorious did this local tendency become that the region became known as the “Burned-Over District,” in honor of the way in which it had surrendered to one religious craze after another. Second, he was operating in an area which, unlike large tracts of the newly opening North America, did possess the signs of an ancient history.

A vanished and vanquished Indian civilization had bequeathed a considerable number of burial mounds, which when randomly and amateurishly desecrated were found to contain not merely bones but also quite advanced artifacts of stone, copper, and beaten silver. There were eight of these sites within twelve miles of the underperforming farm which the Smith family called home. There were two equally stupid schools or factions who took a fascinated interest in such matters: the first were the gold-diggers and treasure-diviners who brought their magic sticks and crystals and stuffed toads to bear in the search for lucre, and the second those who hoped to find the resting place of a lost tribe of Israel. Smith’s cleverness was to be a member of both groups, and to unite cupidity with half-baked anthropology.

The actual story of the imposture is almost embarrassing to read, and almost embarrassingly easy to uncover. (It has been best told by Dr. Fawn Brodie, whose 1945 book No Man Knows My History was a good-faith attempt by a professional historian to put the kindest possible interpretation on the relevant “events.”) In brief, Joseph Smith announced that he had been visited (three times, as is customary) by an angel named Moroni. The said angel informed him of a book, “written upon gold plates,” which explained the origins of those living on the North American continent as well as the truths of the gospel. There were, further, two magic stones, set in the twin breastplates Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament, that would enable Smith himself to translate the aforesaid book. After many wrestlings, he brought this buried apparatus home with him on September 21, 1827, about eighteen months after his conviction for fraud. He then set about producing a translation.

The resulting “books” turned out to be a record set down by ancient prophets, beginning with Nephi, son of Lephi, who had fled Jerusalem in approximately 600 BC and come to America. Many battles, curses, and afflictions accompanied their subsequent wanderings and those of their numerous progeny. How did the books turn out to be this way? Smith refused to show the golden plates to anybody, claiming that for other eyes to view them would mean death. But he encountered a problem that will be familiar to students of Islam. He was extremely glib and fluent as a debater and story-weaver, as many accounts attest. But he was illiterate, at least in the sense that while he could read a little, he could not write. A scribe was therefore necessary to take his inspired dictation. This scribe was at first his wife Emma and then, when more hands were necessary, a luckless neighbor named Martin Harris. Hearing Smith cite the words of Isaiah 29, verses 11–12, concerning the repeated injunction to “Read,” Harris mortgaged his farm to help in the task and moved in with the Smiths. He sat on one side of a blanket hung across the kitchen, and Smith sat on the other with his translation stones, intoning through the blanket. As if to make this an even happier scene, Harris was warned that if he tried to glimpse the plates, or look at the prophet, he would be struck dead.

Mrs. Harris was having none of this, and was already furious with the fecklessness of her husband. She stole the first hundred and sixteen pages and challenged Smith to reproduce them, as presumably—given his power of revelation—he could. (Determined women like this appear far too seldom in the history of religion.) After a very bad few weeks, the ingenious Smith countered with another revelation. He could not replicate the original, which might be in the devil’s hands by now and open to a “satanic verses” interpretation. But the all-foreseeing Lord had meanwhile furnished some smaller plates, indeed the very plates of Nephi, which told a fairly similar tale. With infinite labor, the translation was resumed, with new scriveners behind the blanket as occasion demanded, and when it was completed all the original golden plates were transported to heaven, where apparently they remain to this day.

Mormon partisans sometimes say, as do Muslims, that this cannot have been fraudulent because the work of deception would have been too much for one poor and illiterate man. They have on their side two useful points: if Muhammad was ever convicted in public of fraud and attempted necromancy we have no record of the fact, and Arabic is a language that is somewhat opaque even to the fairly fluent outsider. However, we know the Koran to be made up in part of earlier books and stories, and in the case of Smith it is likewise a simple if tedious task to discover that twenty-five thousand words of the Book of Mormon are taken directly from the Old Testament. These words can mainly be found in the chapters of Isaiah available in Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews: The Ten Tribes of Israel in America. This then popular work by a pious loony, claiming that the American Indians originated in the Middle East, seems to have started the other Smith on his gold-digging in the first place. A further two thousand words of the Book of Mormon are taken from the New Testament. Of the three hundred and fifty “names” in the book, more than one hundred come straight from the Bible and a hundred more are as near stolen as makes no difference. (The great Mark Twain famously referred to it as “chloroform in print,” but I accuse him of hitting too soft a target, since the book does actually contain “The Book of Ether.”) The words “and it came to pass” can be found at least two thousand times, which does admittedly have a soporific effect. Quite recent scholarship has exposed every single other Mormon “document” as at best a scrawny compromise and at worst a pitiful fake, as Dr. Brodie was obliged to notice when she reissued and updated her remarkable book in 1973.

Like Muhammad, Smith could produce divine revelations at short notice and often simply to suit himself (especially, and like Muhammad, when he wanted a new girl and wished to take her as another wife). As a result, he overreached himself and came to a violent end, having meanwhile excommunicated almost all the poor men who had been his first disciples and who had been browbeaten into taking his dictation. Still, this story raises some very absorbing questions, concerning what happens when a plain racket turns into a serious religion before our eyes.

It must be said for the “Latter-day Saints” (these conceited words were added to Smith’s original “Church of Jesus Christ” in 1833) that they have squarely faced one of the great difficulties of revealed religion. This is the problem of what to do about those who were born before the exclusive “revelation,” or who died without ever having the opportunity to share in its wonders. Christians used to resolve this problem by saying that Jesus descended into hell after his crucifixion, where it is thought that he saved or converted the dead. There is indeed a fine passage in Dante’s Inferno where he comes to rescue the spirits of great men like Aristotle, who had presumably been boiling away for centuries until he got around to them. (In another less ecumenical scene from the same book, the Prophet Muhammad is found being disemboweled in revolting detail.) The Mormons have improved on this rather backdated solution with something very literal-minded. They have assembled a gigantic genealogical database at a huge repository in Utah, and are busy filling it with the names of all people whose births, marriages, and deaths have been tabulated since records began. This is very useful if you want to look up your own family tree, and as long as you do not object to having your ancestors becoming Mormons. Every week, at special ceremonies in Mormon temples, the congregations meet and are given a certain quota of names of the departed to “pray in” to their church. This retrospective baptism of the dead seems harmless enough to me, but the American Jewish Committee became incensed when it was discovered that the Mormons had acquired the records of the Nazi “final solution,” and were industriously baptizing what for once could truly be called a “lost tribe”: the murdered Jews of Europe. For all its touching inefficacy, this exercise seemed in poor taste. I sympathize with the American Jewish Committee, but I nonetheless think that the followers of Mr. Smith should be congratulated for hitting upon even the most simpleminded technological solution to a problem that has defied solution ever since man first invented religion.

WWJD? Well, apparently…he’d burn the fuckin Koran and kick a Homo

26 07 2010

Jesus Loves me?

    A Florida church called the Dove World Outreach Center, in keeping with its pledge to “stand up for righteousness,” is hosting “International Burn a Koran Day” on September 11. But only after the “No Homo Mayor” protest next month.

Pastor Terry Jones is a man of his word. He will stand up for his beliefs and preach the word of God from his pulpit at the Dove World Outreach Center, non-believers be damned. “International Burn a Koran Day” is simply a manifestation of Jones’s love for the Lord Jesus Christ, and his quest to crush evildoers around the world:

Apostolic worship which is a conscious, deliberate effort during worship to change the spiritual world, that then works its way out into the natural world and becomes visible as victory over the enemy.

Who is “the enemy?” Muslims and gays, of course. If you need proof, just a few days ago some heathens vandalized the church’s “Islam is of the Devil” road signs. And what sort of criminals would do this, you might ask? Homosexuals! From the church’s blog:

Free speech is hated by homosexuals and they do not like to hear the truth about their perverted lifestyle. We are protesting our openly homosexual Mayor Aug 2. Maybe they did it, (not the Mayor himself, surely) but the more likely trigger for this attack is the burn a Koran Day plan.

Try and wrap your head around that one! On August 2nd, Jones is holding a protest against the mayor of Gainesville, the “No Homo Mayor Protest.” And church member Fran Ingram will tell you why:

“What is homosexuality? Detestable, indecent, wicked, offensive, perverted, shameful, unnatural, degrading, impure, futile, foolish, godless, dishonorable, a lie.”

Wow Ms. Ingram, tell it like it is! This may be a bit cliche for a blog but, I think this post speaks for itself. They say that ignorance is bliss…but I would argue that the chirpy, down home fabricated ignorance on display here, by the fine members of Hells Fire Dove World Outreach, must be extremely exhausting.  The first person to email me raw footage of this pastor smoking ICE and bangin a male model in a broom closet wins a prize.