iRony

I knew it wouldn't be long before silly season started after the death of Steve Jobs. I just didn't know that it would be SO soon and SO completely freaking asinine. But then again, whenever there is the possibility of the Westboro Baptist Church having anything to do with anything, I guess I can't expect a guarantee.

Shortly after the death of Steve Jobs was made known to the world, we were all privy to a tweet from the completely idiotic Margie J Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church Phelps'. These are the people (their brains likely riddled with syphilis and no longer capable of rational thought) who tend to picket the funerals of soldiers killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also like to picket funerals of people who were gay or supported gay rights. In general, they're just a bunch of a-holes. That is most easily evidence by Margie Phelps' tweet which is seen below. Behold!


That's right. They're going to picket his funeral. Please do not let the irony of the fact that she sent this from her iPhone (which, in case you were unaware, Steve Jobs freaking invented!) escape you. And when this was pointed out to her (through a bazillion tweets in the Twitterverse), she gave just the sort of response that I would have expected would have come from someone like her. Behold!

Right. That's why you used your iPhone. Because God made it to tell us that. And look, without even challenging her beliefs, I'm just going to come right out and say that I'm pretty sure that God did not create the iPhone. The small children in China that assemble iPhones have had more of a hand in the creation process than God did. And while I'm on the subject, how is it that none of these Westboro people have been shot yet? I'm merely wondering out loud. I'm not suggesting violence by any means. (I AM a fan of about two percent vigilante justice, however. And I think that these lunatics would qualify for my system.) I'm just sayin'.

Sphere: Related Content

Why So Convincing?

You know, I would have thought that trying to get people to believe that the end of the world was coming would have been a more difficult task than it apparently was. I mean, I would have thought that it would take someone with Oprah-esque charisma to convince people of such a fairlky whack-a-doo idea. Apparently not. Apparently, all you need is some really, really old guy who is vaguely aware of his own consciousness to spew out his theories and you've got yourself the makings of a doomsday prediction that is actually taken seriously by a lot of people.

The oldster to which I refer is a one Harold Camping. He's been telling folks since 1994 that the world was going to end on May 21, 2011. He came to that particular date by using some made up mathematical formula to decipher things that he made up in the Bible. And his formula made no sense. It was something ridiculous like "Every 'thou sayeth' means fifteen" and "Always double down when talking about sin" or something equally hokey. But regardless of the unlikelihood that this guy was right, he convinced many, many people to send him money and to spread the word of the end (that never came). I figured that he must be pretty charismatic to accomplish something like that. Yeah, not so much.

Naturally, since the end of the world didn't come, he had some 'splainin' to do. His explanation to the non-Rapture and to the questions that were asked of him by reporters were less than stellar. I don't understand. He claims now that "...he was not incorrect his in math, just his interpretation about how May 21 would play out. He calls the day "an invisible Judgment." No, no! It wasn't invisible! It was non-existent! There's a different, you old coot! A HUGE difference! Why do people listen to this guy?! That makes NO sense!

Here's some more of his nonsense. One of the reporters asked him "...if he is saying that "we as humans are not capable of understanding the Bible?" Camping said yes. Then he went on to tell a Bible story about Saul. Which, I assume, that we as humans are not capable of understanding. And I'll be honest and admit that I'm not totally sure who Saul is. So that could make him kind of right on that point, but he shouldn't have told the story if that's factually the case.

Now, some of his followers gave away all of their worldly possessions in anticipation of this guy's Rapture. One guy spent his entire 401k on billboards that proclaimed the end of the world. So many other people donated a ton of money to this guy. Oh, but he doesn't plan on giving it back. No, because according to him, he didn't tell those people to do that. That was their decision. Uh-huh. And now that he's moved his date of doomsday to October 21, 2011, he was asked if he is going to give away everything that he owns on October 20. Let's see if you're surprised by this answer: "What would be the value of that?...If it's Judgment Day, it's the end of the world." Oh, for cryin' out loud!

Nothing that comes out of this guy's mouth makes any sense! And yet he has followers all over the place just throwing money at him and his Family Radio radio station. I don't get it. He appears to have the intellect of a turnip. What makes him so appealing to people? I don't get it. But I sure do wish that I could come up with some sort of a ruse like he did and not feel bad about it so that I could help all of those fools part with their money.

Sphere: Related Content

Thou Shalt Not Steal Most of the Time

Can I call a priest a moron? What if he really actually is a moron? Then can I? Since there aren't really any rules for this sort of thing, I'm going to take it upon myself to assume that I can call him an moron and thus, I'm going to do so. You might even agree with me and want to call him a moron yourself. You can wait to make that decision until after you've read the gist of this ordeal if you'd like. I, however, am fully in the gist and will not wait any longer. You, sir, are a moron.

Today our story of moronism takes us across the pond to jolly old England and to the Church of St. Lawrence. (If you're on some sort of sightseeing expedition and would like to add this to your stops, that's in the northern English city of York.) According to a one Theunis Bates over there at Sphere, the Rev. Tim Jones presented his parishoners with an interesting direction for them to go forth and do with. According to the extremely misguided Rev. Jones, he explained to his parishoners that "...poor people struggling to survive should steal food and other essentials from shops, rather than raise money through prostitution, burglary or mugging." Um, wait. What now?

Correct. If you're poor, you should steal. Don't pimp yourself (or hooker yourself) out. Don't be burgling. Don't be mugging. Just be stealing. Plain old stealing. Hallelujiah! Let's go steal! Not so fast! It's not like he didn't realize that this would be controversial or anything. (Hmmm....I wonder if he realized how stupid it would sound. I'm guessing not. Continue.) He laid down some ground rules. Oh, good. Ground rules for...stealing? Yes! Ground rules for stealing, that is correct. OK, then. Let's look at those.

Stealing Rule One: "...do not steal from small, family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices." Um, wait ! That's all they have to do to make this OK with you?! To know that the rest of us are going to get screwed by higher prices as a result of Stealy McTakes-A-Lot over there?! That's it!? Tell me something. What, exactly, is all of this "knowing" supposed to accomplish? See, because usually, when you "know" something, it's so that you won't do it. "Just so you know, you cannot fly. Thus, if you jump out of that window, you will meet your splattery doom." That makes sense to know. But I don't know what good it is to "know" something if you're going to go ahead and do it anyway! "Just so you know, you're screwing over everyone else whose tax dollars are likely already enabling you to survive. Now shove this smoked ham underneath your coat and make a run for it!"

Stealing Rule Two: Rev. Jones says "I would ask them not to take any more than they need..." Uh, Rev? Ever been poor? I don't think that you have. You'd be amazed at how much you "need" when you have "nothing". You'd also be amazed at how much you "need" when you're being enabled to "justify" stealing. While it may be true that some may "need" food, does that automatically mean that they "need" prime rib? What about lobster? What about super buttery crackers, not just Saltines? You'd be amazed at what folks think that they "need" when they're being told "Go forth, my son, and rip off thine vendors."

Stealing Rule Three: This is the second part of Stealing Rule Two which was "I would ask them not to take any more than they need....for any longer than they need." What does that even mean? For any longer than they need? Does that mean only keep something that you've stolen for as long as you need it? (Tell me how that's going to work with this purseful of pork loin that I just pilfered.) Or does that mean to only steal as long as you need to steal (as outlined by the Reverend's guidelines, I suppose)? Do you know what the difference is between the time that it takes to steal something and the time that it takes to go to work every day, earn a paycheck, cash that paycheck and then go buy that thing? It's a lopsided comparison at best!

I'm sure that you can imagine that this didn't sit too well with folks like law enforcement and UK retailers, including something called the British Retail Consortium. (Now, I don't know what that is, but it's a really cool name. Consortium. Is that anything like a well-organized militia?) The Consortium's speaker, a one Krishan Rama, said "You'd expect a vicar to appreciate the difference between right and wrong...There are no excuses for stealing." A novel concept indeed.

As you can imagine (or, at the very least, hope) this whole thieving ideology didn't really sit well with Reverend Jones's boss. No, not that boss (though I'd have to imagine that he was none too thrilled himself), but rather the flesh and bones boss, a one Archdeacon of York, the Venerable Richard Seed. (I wonder, if you are an Archdeacon, does that automatically make you venerable? I have no idea. I don't even know how one becomes an Archdeacon. It sounds kind of cool, though. It has a sort of superhero ring to it. The Archdeacon of York is here to save the daaaaayy!) He tried to distance himself from the remarks of Reverend Jones by saying "The Church of England does not advise anyone to shoplift, or break the law in any way." Finally! Someone with some sense over there in York!

But wait! Here's the best part! According to the above cited article, the Reverend later clarified his position on some British TV show. He said, in part,that he "never said it is OK to steal. It is a dreadful thing to steal." Wait. You never said it was OK to steal?! But there were rules! Three of them from what I inferred! It is "dreadful", but you said go for it! What do you mean you never said that?!

He said that "The sermon was in fact only meant to encourage worshippers to give more to charity, not incite them to snatch cookies from the corner store." Wait. How was it meant to do that? I'm not following you here. According to the Yorkshire Evening Post, you said, "My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift." Huh. See, that doesn't really sound like encouraging worshippers to do anything other than steal things. Where does the encouragement for giving to charity come in? Oh, that's right. It doesn't!

This whole thing is wrong on so many levels. There's the stealing in and of itself to begin with. I think we've covered that one. But next is that now we have a priest who is lying to us! I don't think priests are supposed to lie! (I also don't think that they're supposed to be spending all of that time with those altar boys either, but that's an entirely different subject!) You really can't infer a whole lot from "My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift" other than what it says! He might as well have just said "That was taken out of context." What context?! You said steal!

But here's the part that just kills me. People who are poor, just like every other kind of people, come in two kinds. There are poor people who are smart and there are poor people who are just dumb as a post. Of those who are more likely to heed such a ridiculous suggestion, I'm going to guess it would most likely be the paste eaters. Tell me something, Reverend. Just exactly how good do you think these sorts of folks are going to be at all of the stealing? Seriously. He makes the assumption that if he tells folks to steal, that God is just going to guide them into doing it correctly and getting away with it. Just because you steal something, that doesn't mean that it's going to turn out the way you want it (that way being that you don't get caught and you get your stolen item for free instead of having to work for it like the rest of us, you thieving thief). You clearly didn't think this one through, Clem. Er, Reverend Clem.

So let's just assume (making it a given would be presumptuous) that one of these divinely inspired shoplifters doesn't make it through the front door with that lobster tail hanging out of their pocket and that package of frozen peas in their boots (I'm envisioning big boots, so stay with me here). Then what? I don't know about how things work in the UK, but over here in America, we arrest people for things like that. A lot of the time, they go to jail until they are bailed out. How much money do you think Thief-y von Petty Theft over there is going to have to put towards his bail? I'm guessing if he couldn't pay for that smoked salmon in his shorts, he isn't going to have a whole heck of a lot for bail, either. Then what?

I know! Call Reverend Jones! He'll come bail you out! He's the one that suggested that you steal from businesses in the first place! I'm sure that his congregation won't mind their collection plate dues going to bail out an obedient member of their flock! Sure! No problem! Then again, how much of a flock is he going to have left after this debacle? Right. Probably the same size of a flock as he had before he became the poster child for holiday looting, not to mention holiday scrambling and lying. Whatever. As long as he and his pilfering flock stay on that side of the pond, I won't have to worry about it on this side of the pond. Dear God! Unless he's put his message on YouTube!

Sphere: Related Content

Sweet Mother of God - A Window?

You know, sometimes things just happen. There isn't necessarily a reason for why something happened the way that it did, but you can almost always figure out how something happened. And sometimes there isn't a "why", there's just the "how". That doesn't seem to be good enough for some folks. And by "some folks" I mean the people who insist upon seeing the image of Christ or the Virgin Mary in everything. And by "everything" I mean the whole gamut, ranging from a moth to a Cheeto to a kitchen sink. Wait. A Cheeto? That scrumptious, unnaturally orange, crunchy, food snack item? THAT Cheeto? Uh-huh. That Cheeto. Behold! Cheese-us!

Oh, good Lord. (No pun intended.) Look, I don't know if that Cheeto really looks like Jesus or not. I know that it isn't Jesus. That I am certain. Now, would I eat a Cheeto that looked like Jesus? How hungry am I? WHAT?! They're very tasty! No sense in throwing away perfectly good food. Er, cheese food product things. But I digress. The point is that even if you see something that looks like something in something that isn't that thing, it still doesn't make that thing something. Are you with me? Perhaps you'll catch up when I explain that the window in which the image of the Virgin Mary was spotted over seven months ago has been removed from the building it was in and has now been placed in a secret location. Dun-dun-duuuuunnnnnnn! Behold!

Huh. It would seem that around 11 a.m. on September 30, 2008, that image of the Virgin Mary appeared on a window and was spotted by a patient at the Mercy Medical Center in Boston. How on earth anyone was able to figure out that it looked like the Virgin Mary is beyond me. Unless she was wearing a name tag, I'd miss it! The hospital had been planning on replacing the window (which had been there since the 1970s with no apparitions of the Mother of Christ having been seen) but, according to a one Mark Fulco, quoted in the Boston Globe, "Obviously, we didn't change the window out when we heard." When you heard? That it was a little dirty? What?

Mind you, that was back in October, 2008, that he said that. The Mr. Fulco said then that "We figure the best thing to do right now is just leave it in place, until it can be fully evaluated and we can get advice from the Diocese of Springfield." Well, I guess that couldn't hurt. Really. Can it? Wait a minute! What am I saying? It's a window! It has smudge! I don't think that the Diocese needs to be called in for the purpose of assessing cleanliness.

And really, I don't know why a consultation would have been in order in the first place, being as how Mr. Fulco also said that "Glass specialists have told hospital officials that water seeped between the panes of the double-paned glass and the "minerals reacted and caused some type of acidic reaction that appears to have etched the glass." There you have it! Case closed! Not so fast.

Mr. Fulco went on to say, "What is unusual is the image that appears to have been etched." What? You just said! The special glass people just said the minerals reacted and the acidic reaction etched the glass! Why is that "unusual"? It's not like there isn't an explanation! What's the deal?

The answer to that question is as of yet still, yes still, still unanswered because according to the Boston Herald , the "...hospital is still trying to figure out what to do with" the window! So far, "The hospital, a Catholic institution, removed the window and are storing it in a secret location." A secret location? Out of fear of what? A squeegee? Don't know. But the hospital is apparently "...waiting for a report from experts they would not identify to determine if the window is worthy of veneration." All right, all right. That's enough!

That "they would not identify?" Why not? Is there some underground racket of virginal window imagery assessment that the general public is best not to be aware of? Judging from this, you'd think so! But wait! Here's the best part: "Engineering experts said the image was caused after a failed rubber seal allowed mineral deposits between panes of glass. But hospital officials have said that doesn’t explain why the deposits combined to resemble the Virgin Mary." Oh, for cryin' out loud. Are you serious?

What hospital is this? Mercy Medical Center? Note to self: If ever in Boston and feeling unwell, avoid Mercy Medical Center at all costs, as it seems to be run by a bunch of wingnuts.

So they leave the window there for seven months before removing it via some underground railroad for slightly smeared window panes or something similar, all the while continuing to want an explanation as to why it looks like the Virgin Mary. The answer to your question is simple: It just does!

Randomness is just what it says it is. Random. Sometimes random stuff will produce something that can resemble something else. Other times, random stuff will produce something that doesn't resemble squat. Why? Because it's random, that is correct! It's not supposed to look like anything, it just so happened that it kind of, sort of, maybe (and that's stretching it, from what I can tell) looks like something. It wasn't on purpose that it looks like that! It wasn't supposed to look like anything!

Perhaps the hospital folk over there might want to consider some of the many, many other objects in or on which an apparition has been seen. If so, hopefully they'll take note that there wasn't any reason for why those objects looked the way that they did. They just did!

Here's Jesus on a moth! (Yes! A moth!)

The Virgin Mary on a window in Clearwater, FL!

Jesus on a light pole (allegedly)!
The Virgin Mary on a griddle! Comin' right up!

And my personal favorite, the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich!

Do you really think that there is a "reason" for why all of these things look the way that they do? There better not be.

Sphere: Related Content

Best Religion Ever?

I have to make it a point to visit Sweden some day. Just because I think I might need to see this place for myself. There are some odd going-ons in Sweden and folks there seem to be OK with most of them. I don't know if that makes them any less odd, but it certainly doesn't make them any more odd. I'm very interested in their legal system. Particularly the court which has ruled that a church, which was seeking "official recognition" as far as churches go, "had the right to be registered as a faith community." All of that according to my favorite Swedish news source (in English), The Local. But what's the big deal about that? The "church" in question is known as the Orgasmens Madonnas kyrka. (Of course it is.) Roughly translated, that works out to be "The Madonna of Orgasm Church." (Of course it does. Wait. What?)

Correct. The Madonna of Orgasm Church was founded (Translation: Made up) by a guy from the southern Swedish town of Lovestad whose name is Carlos Bebeacua. Bebeacua is not only the founder of the "church", he is also the "church's" cardinal. Self appointed, of course. (By the way, the "church" only has priestesses. How convenient for Cardinal Orgasmo there.) According to The Local, we learn in English that Bebeacua got the idea for the church "after a painting of his entitled 'The Madonna of Orgasm' sparked protests requiring police action during the 1992 World’s Fair in Seville, Spain." Huh. So he just figured that if a painting could cause complete chaos, just imagine the hell that could break loose if he had a whole freakin' church!

By the way, it's not that Madonna that the guy is referring to., I figured I should point that out because I could see where, after reading both "Madonna" and "orgasm" in the same sentence/title of something, one might become confused and incorrectly think that the velocaraptor-like, fifty something, freakishly flexible, pop singer is the one whom an orgasmic house of worship was named after. It's not. It's not about her. It's not even a little bit about her. Contrary to how she seems to think the world revolves around her, this has nothing to do with her at all. Keep that in mind.

Now, what had happened what that when Cardinal Orgasmo tried to register his "church", "the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency (Kammarkollegiet as it's known in Sweden. Of course, everyone knows that!) had refused the church’s registration application on the grounds that its name may offend Christians." I don't know why they felt the need to specify "Christians". A name like that, while it might not "offend" almost everyone, it would probably wig a lot of people out just a tad. Naturally, the horny guy appealed and won. And here we are.

He summarizes his "rationale" behind his "church" by stating, "The orgasm is God, the orgasm should be worshiped." (Psst!! Dude. Little secret for ya....It already is!! People are already aware of how freaking great the orgasm is! We know! Granted, some of us know better than others (thank God!), but we know! You don't need a church to get that message across!)

Made-up Cardinal Bebeacua also says that, "The orgasm is the ultimate feeling of lust, it shouldn’t be limited to ejaculation. You can reach it through art or by looking at a landscape and thinking ‘Wow!’ " (Psst!! Dude. I've got another secret for ya.....the way that orgasm is reached as it is, is just fine with most of us. We don't really want art or landscaping getting in the way of our orgasm because really, what's the point? We're not going to remember that art or that landscaping during said orgasm and we're certainly not going to remember that art or that landscaping after said orgasm. Hell, most of us can't even remember our partner's name after said orgasm (let alone our own name at that point!).

So what goes on in this "church", you ask? Other than the obvious? Well, apparently, Cardinal Orgasmo there teaches "scriptures". The "scriptures" (which I'm positive are made-up. By him, of course.) are called the Catechism of the Orgasm. (Basically, a "catechism" is a method of teaching a religious doctrine. The definition of a "catechism" is "oral instruction". Just thought I'd throw that in there for kicks, you know?) And as far as the gospel goes (again, obviously made-up), "the only gospel preached is the gospel of sex“ The reasoning behind that (other than the fact that the made-up church is called the "Orgasm Church" ) according to The Card is "It’s so we do what we know is right and good.” Uh-huh. Just because it's "right" doesn't make it "good". I'm just saying.

"During ceremonies, the priestesses read verses and eat fruit and drink juice" Huh. Sounds like kindergarten. Only without a nap and with all the sex. Eww! Ick! Oh, but of course he says that "Sex isn’t the focus." Dude, it's the ORGASM CHURCH! How can you possibly even think of saying that "Sex isn't the focus"? Unless your theory is that it's NOT the focus, it's the CHURCH! But he stands his ground when defending his made-up church against accusations that it is all about orgies and sex "by claiming its purpose is to help people see orgasms as a metaphor for a love of life.“ Again, dude....it's a metaphor for a love of the orgasm! That's it. You're rarely thinking of much else at the time and if you are, well, I feel bad for ya. You're really missing out.

He says, "There’s nothing dangerous in what we say, we’re harmless. It’s just that we have our doubts about established religions.” You have your doubts about established religions and so you go and create an unestablished one so that there will be some validity in it for you due to all of the unestablished-ness?

Look, here's my thing...(No! Not my "thing" with sex! That's privileged information, reserved solely for....well....will you look at that! Distracted again! I really need to stay on topic. Where was I?) If you're going to concoct some sort of church that centers around your genitals because you're a horn-dog, that's one thing (and not a minor one, either). But at least, at the very least, earn yourself a shred of respect from others and just admit that's what your deal is. You can be a horn-dog (and if you've created the Super-Terrific Orgasm Temple, you probably are) and while I won't necessarily respect you for that (Translation: I won't), at least if you're not a big, fat, horny liar about it, I can respect that aspect. Not much, but some.

But really, the best thing for you to do is not make-up some fake church and then petition the courts for legitimacy. The best thing for you to do is to go home, back downstairs to your parents' basement, call that your temple and worship yourself all the live long day. Or until you go blind. Whichever comes first. (Pun intended. You didn't think I could go this whole post without one, did you?)

Sphere: Related Content

Tattoos Should Never Be Mandatory

It would seem that over in there in London they have a one Reverend Peter Mullen who seems to be rather opinionated (translation: crazy) in his views of "the gays" and how they should be handled (Mmm...yeah, pun probably intended there.). His anti-gay stance (oh, puns abound in that one) felt so important to him that he felt the need to post his thoughts on his blog. (Oh, that explains it. he's a blogger. Sheesh. Bloggers!) I'm sure you can guess that hilarity did not ensue.

According to the fine blokes down under at couriermail.com.au, his blog post, among other things, deemed all gay pride parades (all? Like the Kinda Gay, the Really Gay and the Flaming Gay parades? All?) to be "obscene" and called for them to be outlawed, and "He also criticised the blessing of two gay priests at a "wedding" performed earlier this year in a City of London church." And while I understand that some people out there really have a problem with the whole gay thing and are going to say, do or write stupid, stupid things, I think he might have over empowered himself just a bit as he continued to blog his hateful and ridiculous thoughts. He probably should have left out the part where he suggested "that homosexuals should have their backsides tattooed with the slogan: "Sodomy can seriously damage your health." Wait. What?

Correct. Tattoos. And tattooing. For "the gays". He's in favor of tattooing "the gays". Actually, just so you can enjoy what he wrote in all of it's glory, the complete text read, "Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH and their chins with FELLATIO KILLS." I see. Well, that's pretty clear now, isn't it? Yep, pretty clear. That the man is a moron who should NOT be in the position of Reverend. (I'd like him to be in the position under Bubba, the 300-pound florist down in the Castro.)

Now, right away, if you know anything at all about the gays (oh, admit it, you say you don't know, but you're pretty curious. What about that time in the garage during halftime of the Super Bowl about 10 years ago? You guys just weren't looking at his new saw!) you know that he has clearly not thought this thing through. I mean, really, fellatio doesn't kill people! People kill people! You should know that by now! And on top of that (pun SO intended) they're not billboards, sir! And they're also not looking for a little light reading at the time that they might be seeing your tattoo of hate sprawled across their posterior.

Why the chin? That seems like just poor product placement. Shouldn't he have suggested the forehead for the fellatio one? It seems like it would be more effective there. But what do I know? I'm a chick. Hey, and that reminds me, what is he planning on doing for the lesbians? Having them get a tattoo that reads "Save the bushland! Get a husband!" on their stomachs or what?

Of course, when the good Reverend was spoken to about this, he "insisted his remarks were "light-hearted jokes" and "satirical". He also proclaimed (translation: lied) "I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion." First of all, I don't know too many gay people who would take the notion and the suggestion that they should be involuntarily branded with an anti-homosexual message as a "light hearted joke", nor would they interpret the idea as "satirical". Homophobic and asinine, perhaps. Light hearted and satirical? Probably not. But what's with the "have been" part? How does that work? "Hey, Bob! How's it going? Long time, no see! Still gay?" (To which the appropriate answer would be, "Yep! Still an ass?")

Fortunately, the Church of England ordered him to remove the comments from his blog because they said they were "highly offensive." Oh, you think?! But Rev. Mullen also added, "What I have got against them is the militant preaching of homosexuality." Militant preaching? He must not have heard of "Don't ask, don't tell." There's no military anything involved with the gays when it comes to the preaching, especially if no one asked.

Now, of course when there's any sort of a gay slur out there, a gay rights group has to come up for air and denounce the comments. Taking their turn in the rotation this time was the gay rights group Outrage. They described the comments as "Neanderthal". Right behind him (pun way intended) was the gay rights group Stonewall. Their chief executive, Ben Summerskill, said the comments were "nonsense" and "If I were a vicar at the heart of the City of London, I might be praying about other things at the moment rather than getting hot under the collar about gay sex." Dude. Getting hot under the collar is usually how the gay sex starts! It's definitely how it ends in some instances! Nothing wrong with a hot collar, after all. (And after that collar gets all hot underneath and there's all the subsequent sex, you know what? Not so bad! In fact, done correctly, it's quite good! My God, was it good. Oh, whoops. Sorry. I digress. )

Just for the record, a Diocese of London spokeswoman said the remarks did not reflect its views. Well, I should hope not! Being a diocese and all, the homo hating? Not very church-y. Not at all. They said, "While clergy are entitled to their own personal views, we fully recognise that the content of this text is highly offensive and it is in no way reflective of the views of the Diocese of London." (Translation: We're not stupid. But he is. We don't hate gay people. But he does. We'd like to get rid of him, but you know how we roll. Anything else? No? OK, then.")

While looking for pictures of this buffoon, I ran across some photos from an event he spoke at (presumedly without all of the gay bashing and tattooed chin suggesting) a few years ago. He was at the 37th Anniversary Dinner for the Ancient Society of College Youths. I'm going to have to guess that a few people who were there that night would not be happy to learn of his comments and his tattooing suggestions that he's made of late to help control all of the militant gayness over there.

Sphere: Related Content