Mock Everything

Yesterday was simply exhausting. Don't get me wrong. It had nothing to do with Valentine's Day. No, not at all. In fact, let me sum up my feelings about the ol' V.D. Here we go...

So, yeah. Whatever. It was, however, brought to my attention that I somehow overlooked including Nicki Minaj in my Grammy fashion montage yesterday. How that happened I have no idea because it is definitely something that should have been addressed. But I'm good with being a day late. Timeliness is often overrated anyway. Behold!

Yes, if it appears that she's dressed as some sort of weird Little Red Riding Hood who is being escorted by a faux Pope, then you've clearly grasped the content of her outfit. What is still perplexing me is the reason behind such an outfit. Oh, wait. It's the Grammys. She appears to be channeling Lady Gaga and 1990s Madonna in an effort to be "shocking" on live national TV during "music's biggest night of the year". I don't know about you, but I'm bored with shock. It's just not that "shocking" anymore. Come on, we have the Internet. If you're looking to be shocked and you're turning to a nationally televised prime time music awards show instead of going online, I fear for the day when you stumble across something on the Internet which is truly shocking. You don't know what "shocking" is unless you've crawled through the underbelly of the Internet for a little while. There are things on there from which one might not ever recover. But a "shocking" act at the Grammys? Please. Gimme something I can work with.

Regardless of how not shocking the sorts of performances like Nicki Minaj's are, they still occur for some reason. What she did was dress up like Little Red Riding Hood and then had herself surrounded by fire and dancers. I think it was supposed to represent hell. (It represented my own personal hell. Dancing? That would be hell for me.) But then the Pope guy showed up again and there was some sort of "levitation" that took place. Still fire. Still dancing. Little Red Riding Hood is floating and some guy dressed like the Pope then performs an "exorcism". Shocking, right? Not to me. I thought it was a bit ridiculous, but I wasn't shocked. I certainly wasn't appalled. Can't say that I can say the same for some Catholics and for some Catholic based organizations. Yeah, they were not amused.

Here's the thing: As it was pointed out by someone named Bill Donohue of something called the Catholic League (a name that makes it sound like they fight crime), "None of this was by accident, and all of it was approved by The Recording Academy, which puts on the Grammys" I'm OK with them approving it. (Would I rather that someone not seemingly mock a religion in a public forum such as the Grammys? Yeah, I think I would. But that doesn't mean that I think that it shouldn't happen. If an "artist" wants to mock religion, how about if they do it on their album or in their songs that people can choose to listen to if they want and not subject everyone to it?) But what I want to know is what if it was another religion that she wanted to mock?

Think about it for a second. What if she wanted to mock Islam? Can you imagine the massive s-storm that would ensue?! Oh, we'd never heard the end of it and I'm sure that there would be "Death to America" chants coming from various sand lands around the globe. Or what about Judaism? If someone got up there at the Grammys and made a mockery of the Jews, I think the world's head might explode. So what makes it OK to mock the Catholics? What's the difference between that and mocking Islam? Oh, right. Muslim extremists want to kill us. Hmmm. That's problematic, but it shouldn't be an excuse that works. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that the Catholics adopt the tactics of Muslim extremists. (I'm not suggesting that the Muslim extremists adopt the tactics of the Muslim extremists.) I'm just pointing out that it's so weird that mocking some religions seems to be perfectly OK and mocking others seems to be complete taboo. Mock ALL religions!

Sphere: Related Content

The Mosque Mess

I'm going to try my best to delve into this whole "should they build a mosque at Ground Zero" debate that seems to be going on. I'm not so sure how well I'm going to do with this, as it doesn't seem to be that difficult of a concept to wrap my head around. When something is that easy for me to understand, I always feel like I must be missing something. Yet, folks are all up in arms about it, and understandably so. Let's see what all the hubbub is about, shall we?

According to the Boston Herald, "A controversial mosque and Islamic center to be built some 600 feet from Ground Zero cleared its last legal hurdle this week, winning approval from New York’s Landmarks Preservation Commission." That's right. A group of folks headed by a one Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (pronounce any of those however you'd like) want to build a mosque a couple of blocks from where the World Trade Center used to stand and where almost three thousand people were killed as the result of "...the actions of a group of Islamic radicals.". As you can imagine, that idea isn't setting very well with folks.

People are upset. People want to prevent them from building a mosque there, saying that it's disrespectful, it's awful, etc. And they're right. It would appear to be all of those things and a whole hell of a lot more. But here's the thing: No matter how much we don't like it, there isn't anything we can do about it to prevent it from being built.

That whole First Amendment, you know, the one that makes this country freaking awesome? Yeah, that thing is exactly why nothing can be done and it's probably why nothing should be done. The First Amendment, for those who might be a little fuzzy on the text, reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." You can't just ignore that.

I wish that, instead of focusing on how much people dislike and abhor this idea, people would focus more on things like why in the world is it being built there of all freaking places? Yeah, yeah, I know that they have the land and that land in Manhattan is rather difficult to come by. I get that. That doesn't make it any more palatable. And it certainly doesn't make it any more justifiable.

Apparently, this project has a web site that the Boston Herald inexplicably does not link to. Oh, that's right. The media sucks. I forgot. But they do say "The Web site for the $100 million project says all the right things about its aims at bringing people of different faiths together and about honoring the memory of 9/11 victims." Hmm. Tell you what, mosque guys. How about you let us decide when we'd like to be brought together, OK? How about you help us honor the memory of the 09/11 victims by not building a mosque a couple of blocks away? How about that? I can't see how something this disrespectful is going to do anything other than strain relations between folks of different faiths. (And by "between folks of different faiths" I mean the mosque-goers and the non-mosque goers.)

I'm guessing because it doesn't have anything to do with any of that flowery crap that he was spouting. See, "He has repeatedly refused to disclose who is putting up the money for the project, although he told an Arab-language newspaper that such funding would come from the Middle East." Why wouldn't you disclose that, dude? Why the secrets? You expect people to be perfectly OK with this and not ask you questions? You expect people are going to be perfectly OK with this when you refuse to answer their questions about funding? This can't be good.

Obviously, this is just a kick in the head of the American people. They could build this thing anywhere they wanted to, but they're not. And I think that they're not because it's their way of letting us know that they're here and they're not going away. And as the United States, we have to allow that, as that is what our Constitution guides us to do. Now, I keep hearing the argument or the point or whatever they want to call it about Pearl Harbor. Basically, would we have let the Japanese build some sort of Shinto shrine or temple next to the USS Arizona? It kind of sounds valid, but I don't think that it really is when the context of how it's being argued is used.

See, the Japanese would not have built a temple next to the USS Arizona. You know why not? Because we kicked their ass, that is correct. We not only kicked their ass, we obliterated it. Twice. We haven't kicked anyone's ass in retaliation for 09/11. Oh, sure. We invaded a country that had nothing to do with it and deposed of their dictator who was eventually executed. We've been traipsing around the God-forsaken rocks of Afghanistan for a while without a lot of success. (But that's only because success hasn't been defined yet. As soon as it's defined, I'm sure that we'll have fallen incredibly short. But until then, we'll just stay vague about the degree of success which we may or may not have achieved.)

If someone's ass had been kicked over 09/11, you can bet that there wouldn't be any mosque building going on that close to Ground Zero. They're doing it simply because they can and, more importantly, because they want to. They want to appear the martyr in this situation. They want to have rationale for all of their twisted logic under Islamic law and Sharia law. And since we operate under our Constitution, we have to allow them to do so.

I don't know what would be better; to civilly protest this thing or to stay quiet about this thing. Legally, nothing can be done and nothing should be done. Legal action for something like this would point the country in a direction that I'm not so sure you really want it to go in. In fact, I'm positive you don't. But would a lack of attention be better in this case? I don't know. I just know that people need to take their emotions out of the issue. I realize that is damn near impossible for some. But we can't go around making decisions based on feelings. (Look at California's freaking financial situation. The state is swimming in expensive "feel good" programs. It doesn't work to legislate with feelings.) That just doesn't work.

Sphere: Related Content

The Crucification of Common Sense

Do trends start here in America and are picked up by the folks over in Europe or do the trends start in Europe and are picked up by the folks over here in America? Either way, there's a scary one that has reared it's head and the outrage seems not as much as I would have expected. I don't know if it's due to complacency or idiocy, but I fear the latter.

According to our friends across the pond at The Telegraph "....seven judges in Strasbourg said the display of Christian crosses, which is common but not mandatory in Italian schools, violated the principle of secular education and might be "disturbing" for children from other faiths." Wait. What now?

Correct. Apparently, Italian schools frequently have some sort of crucifix hanging somewhere in the classroom. So how distracting are these crucifixes? (Or is it crucifii?) From what I can tell, these crucifixes are not life sized replicas of the one in which Jesus (allegedly) used. No, they seem to be small and able to be affixed to the walls of said classrooms. They don't seem to light up, be aflame, make noise or do anything other than simply hang there. Hmmm. It seems odd that this would be a problem, doesn't it? When you learn how this idiotic case came to be in front of the seven judges of the apocalypse, it's really not so odd at all.

See, this is the result of a lawsuit that was brought about by an atheist woman, a one Soile Lautsi, "...who complained that her children had to attend a state school in northern Italy which had crucifixes in every classroom." Um, I don't think they did. They had to attend a state school which had crucifixes (I guess crucifii is out!) in every classroom? Let's think about this for just a moment, shall we?

Let's assume that the entire school is just riddled with crucifixes. That would seem to indicate that the school has a certain way of thinking about things. They're big on the crucifix! The entire school would join the crucifix's Fan Page on Facebook if there was one. (Please don't tell me if there is. I just cannot handle any more weirdness.) I don't know if she should be so concerned about the crucifix being in the classroom if it's put there out of a belief in Jesus Christ dying upon that symbol as a way to save the rest of us from out sins. Thus, why is this about the symbol and not about the ideology? Because this pain in the ass woman is an atheist, that's why.

In defense of atheists that I know, y'all are wonderful people. Y'all are brilliant people! I have no problem with your beliefs. But can I ask if there's anything that you can do to reel in people like the cuckoo bird that created the swirling maelstrom of s***? Anything? Because it's people like her who really give all atheists a bad name. (Actually, it's people like her who give all human beings a bad name, but I digress.)

If this woman doesn't want her children attending the school with all of the crucifixes in it, what say she put her children in a different school? What say she home school them? Now, I realize that by her home schooling them, they're likely to turn out just as nutso as she is and that would be unfortunate. I get that. But I am SO over having everything being altered because ONE person claims to be offended.

According to the P.O.S. ruling, "The presence of the crucifix could be ... disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities." Wait. What? "Could be"?? Could? Do they mean "might"? Might? As in "Monkeys might fly out of my arse." (They're not gonna, but they might!) THAT kind of "might"? Lots of things might happen. Does that mean that we need to start changing everything that everyone (sans one moron) is perfectly OK with? I don't think it does! Then again, I'm not some 200 year old judge in Italy, apparently.

Lady, I've got news for you. Your kids are going to need to learn to ignore more outside influences in their life than simply a damn crucifix hanging on a wall. I love it when these rulings come out and they are always, without a doubt, always totally vague on HOW the disturbance might occur. And in the case of the atheist versus the crucifix, I don't see how the disturbance could occur. See, the crucifix is a religious symbol that is rooted in the belief in God. If you don't believe in God, the crucifix means nothing. How can you be offended by something that means nothing to you that you don't believe in? Are they also offended by pictures of ghosts and goblins at Halloween? Those don't exist, yet I'm sure that there are representations of those displayed prominently during the Halloween season. How are ghosts and goblins any different than a crucifix when it comes to being an atheist? I don't see that there is a difference. All I see is that this woman is still a pain in the ass.

I don't understand why her relocating to someplace that was more accommodating to her belief system was not an option. Oh, wait. She did relocate. She is Finnish and possesses Italian citizenship! Was she unaware of the overly Catholic influence throughout Italy when she moved there?! I find that hard to believe and yet she moved there anyway. It must not have bothered her enough to go there on purpose. To live! And wait a minute! The Finnish flag is just a sideways crucifix (minus the dead Jesus, of course)! Has she sued Finland as well?! It might offend someone that it's a sideways crucifix! (It probably would offend someone to know that Jesus was missing as well!)

I also don't understand why things that "might" happen are supposed to dictate our actions. And finally, I really don't understand exactly what in the hell would happen to her kids if they had to continue to go to school with a crucifix hanging on the wall. It's not like they're making them carry some 10-foot wooden crucifix across the playground every day at recess (though I personally would have rather done that than had to endure another game of Dodge Ball). Good luck, Italy! You're going to need it! (But quick! Someone put that Jesus bobblehead doll on the bus!)

(Side note: I'd like to thank my friend Patty for bringing this lunacy to my attention. Now if you'll excuse me, there's a wall that I need to go finish banging my head against.)

Sphere: Related Content

Halloween Crackpots

Ah, yes. Leave it to the wingnut crackpots in the tele-evangelical scam profession to use Halloween to make up a bunch of crap and spread it around claiming it's the word of Jesus. Granted, I don't know with 100% certainty that the particular crap I'm about to mock here is not the word of God and/or Jesus, but I'm 99.99% sure that it's not. (I'm saving that .01% just to ensure that I won't go to hell for this. Hedge your bets. That's what I always say.)

A one Kimberly Daniels wrote a Halloween column as a Guest Writer for CBN. CBN stand for the Christian Broadcasting Network. It's one of your typical mass evangelical organizations which take from the poor in order to make themselves rich and do so under the guise of it being for God or Jesus (both of whom I highly doubt authorized any of it). If you haven't already thought of it by now, think Jim and Tammy Faye Taker. I mean Faker. I mean Bakker! Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. Sheesh. Talk about subliminal typing. Her post was entitled "The Danger of Celebrating Halloween". Now I should have guessed that it wouldn't be about some real danger like creepy people who always look like they're wearing a costume or unwrapped candy that had metal shards poking out of it. No, her column was about fake danger. That is to say, not danger at all.

I will give her this: It was one of the most unintentionally hilarious articles I have read in quite some time! She starts off by explaining the etymology of the word "Halloween" and concluding that it's the day of service for Lucifer. I don't know about you, but I don't share my candy with anyone and that includes this Lucifer fellow (who kinda looks like Wolverine in that photo there). But wait! There's more!

What about things like "Decorating buildings with Halloween scenes, dressing up for parties, going door-to-door for candy, standing around bonfires and highlighting pumpkin patches"? Do you ever participate in any of those activities around or on Halloween? If so, you should know that they "...are all acts rooted in entertaining familiar spirits. All these activities are demonic and have occult roots." Ah, yes. Decorating buildings. A sure sign of Satan at work. What the hell, woman?! Pumpkin patches?! Demonic?? Tell me something, are these demonic pumpkin patches ONLY demonic AT Halloween time? Or are they demonic all year 'round? I don't see how they could only be seasonally demonic, so they must be demonic all year 'round. Thus, she is clearly calling to an end of all pumpkin harvesting, growing and any other pumpkin related activity which takes place in a patch. (I can only assume that the poor woman who wrote this has had her mind riddled with syphilis. It's the only way to explain such completely baseless thoughts and assertions.)

She insists that we know "the truth". And what is that? Well, "The truth is that these demons that have been presented as scary cartoons actually exist. I have prayed for witches who are addicted to drinking blood and howling at the moon." I, too, have prayed for those howling at the moon. I have prayed for them to shut the hell up, as I am usually trying to sleep during said howling. Can't they howl during the day when most folks are awake? It would really be less disruptive if they could. And where does one meet these "witches who are addicted to drinking blood"? Is there some sort of group or meeting for that? If so, why in the hell is she going there?

She also gives us a list of the "secret" activities that go on during Halloween. I was guessing that they would sort of be like the "secret" menu at In and Out Burger. You know, the kind of "secret" that everyone knows, but that just isn't publicly displayed? Nope. This stuff that she came up with really is a secret because I can't imagine that any of these things actually happen (which is probably why no one knows about them). Let's run the list, shall we? Ahem...behold!

The word "occult" means "secret." The danger of Halloween is not in the scary things we see but in the secret, wicked, cruel activities that go on behind the scenes. These activities include:

Sex with demons
Orgies between animals and humans
Animal and human sacrifices
Sacrificing babies to shed innocent blood
Rape and molestation of adults, children and babies
Revel nights
Conjuring of demons and casting of spells
Release of "time-released" curses against the innocent and the ignorant.

Um, well. I don't rightly know what to say. Sex with demons? Come on! I've had sex with some very questionable individuals in my time, but I'd hardly go as far as to say that they were demons! Animal & human orgies? You folks need help! I don't know if you need God or Jesus, but some help you could definitely use. Casting of spells? I suppose if you believe in that sort of thing that it would be concerning. However, if you're not so much into the casting of spells, who gives a crap. Cast away! Can I polish your cauldron for you? Weirdos. Ooh-Ooh!! But those "time released" curses against the ignorant? Could you tell me how to do those? I'm really interested in that aspect of these demonics. In fact, that would come in quite handy for me in my day to day life, really.

But here is my absolute favorite claim that she makes. "During this period demons are assigned against those who participate in the rituals and festivities. These demons are automatically drawn to the fetishes that open doors for them to come into the lives of human beings. For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches."

Um, I don't think it has. Sorry. I just don't. Dedicated and prayed over by witches...how? Like, are these witches employed by the candy companies? Hershey's? M&M-Mars? The folks who make the glorious, glorious Reese's? Are you telling me that they employ witches to "dedicate and pray" over their batches of candy? Are they year 'round employees or just seasonal? (Is there a benefit package? What are their hours? Are uniforms involved? Do they have name tags?) And how exactly does said dedication and pray-ation occur? I'm picturing the witches being hung in some sort of harness and just swung all over the production lines like some sort of wayward pendulum. Maybe they have a wand, perhaps a scepter, but there is definite cackling involved! Eye of newt, tongue of frog, that sort of chanting probably accompanies all of the scepter waving. It really sounds like quite a distraction for the other employees who do not get to swing from suspended cables. I would be distracted.

Halloween is Halloween. I plan on handing out demonic, prayed over candy and I might just stand by a bonfire or two just to really give the devil a good ol' temptin'! Place all of the curses and spells you want upon me, but I don't want to know a damn thing about anyone's sex with demons. Don't ask, don't tell. That's my Halloween motto from here on out.

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

Maybe It's Just Fate That You're All Alone

Everyone is different from everyone else, right? More or less, sure. And we've had it drilled into our thick, thick skulls that "different is good". But sometimes, people think that just because they're "different", that means that they're not just "good", but "really good". Or something like that. They sure don't think that they're like everyone else. They sure do think that they need to have little specialty niches just for them to crawl into and feel safe about the world. (That kind of "different" isn't called "good", it's called "wussy", by the way.) And apparently some (not ALL, for God's sake! Some. Some!) Christians think that they are "different" than the rest of society when it comes to a lack of "dating skills" like flirting and "reading signals". Apparently the Christians who think that really haven't been on a whole hell of a lot of dates. Otherwise they'd know that society, in general and as a whole, is completely and shamelessly socially inept and they're no different.

But there are people out there who want the low-esteem, dateless Christians to feel as if they are different. Of course, those are the same people who also feel the need to try and profit off of the bitter and alone Christian folks by founding a dating service which offers courses designed to make the bitter and alone a little more successful in turning a first date into a long-term relationship. (No word on what "long-term" involves here. I mean, for me, "long term" would be if they're making me breakfast. So just keep in mind, it's all relative.) The dating service has been dubbed Christian Connections and (shocker) it's an online dating service.

According to a one Jackie Elton, the founder of the niche agency, the number of people who are using Christian dating sites "has doubled over the past year". Now, she doesn't say what the number was before it doubled, so we could assume that they're up from 20 to 40. We have no idea. (Again, using the above example, it's all relative.) But she goes on to say that the lonely Christians "...know what they want, but many congregations are too small or have a gender imbalance that makes it really difficult for them.. As a result they are not getting the kind of experience they need and that's why they are turning to the workshops." Oh, crap. The what?

The workshops. According to the fine folks across the pond at The Telegraph, "Lessons include how to greet someone, how to hold good eye contact and how to judge whether the other person wants to be kissed at the end of the evening." Look, I'm not trying to belittle anyone here, but do they really need lessons on these things? I'm thinking that if they do there might be some other underlying issues that instructional material just isn't going to help out very much. Those things are not that hard. I'll show you.

• How to greet someone - Say hi.
  
  
• How to hold good eye contact - Start by looking at them. Don't stare (freak). Just pretend like you're paying attention to whatever they're saying and you'll be fine. (Unless they ask you what they just said, and then you're screwed.)
  
  
• How to judge whether the other person wants to be kissed at the end of the evening - What matters here is if you want to be kissed. And if you do, there's only one way to find out if the other person does too.

See? Simple. You don't need some sort of a "service" for stuff like this. And if you really don't want to worry about those things, I have one word for you. Alcohol. What? Yeah, I get out plenty. Why do you ask?

Never mind. Anyway, in this same realm of Socially Inept Christians Collecting Knowledge Online (SICCKO) we find Peter Spalton, who is also known as "the dating doctor". (Of course, later on in the article, The Telegraph simply refers to him as "Mr. Spalton", giving you a wee bit o' insight as to what they think of his self-indulgent moniker.) He said that, "...churchgoers tended to be more reserved and could benefit from tips on how to appear more attractive." Well. That's a statement. I wonder what he has in mind? Was he the one counselling the FLDS women? Behold! Churchgoers who tend to be more reserved and could benefit from tips on how to appear more attractive!

Now, the Rev. Richard Cunningham (not the guy from "Happy Days") who is the director of the University and College Christian Fellowship says that society has become increasingly fragmented and one of the results is that people are lacking in basic skills which could be beneficial to dating successfully. And what do you think is responsible for the demise of social skills in society? Well, according to the fine Reverend, "With the growth of the Internet, people are losing social skills we used to take for granted, and have drifted away from being able to read signals." Shocking, I know, to learn that spending a lot of time online and not going out and interacting with real people will lead to poorly developed social skills and lots of dateless individuals (otherwise known as "spinsters" or "trolls").

But wait a minute. If it's because of "the growth of the Internet" that has people becoming more and more socially inept than before (Oh, don't kid yourself. No one is really good at this stuff. Some are more not good at it than others, but in general, interacting with others in society is like being dropped off on Moron Island.) then how is an online dating service going to help anyone?! Last time I checked, the Internet was online!! Good Lord...

I don't see this as being beneficial for many people, I don't care what your religious affiliation is. If the problem is because you're online too much, it can't be helpful to have you get online more to learn how to interact with others. And by the way, if you're thinking that you can probably handle the Christian dating scene on your own but you're just looking for a few Christian pick-up lines that you can use, I can't say that I'd recommend any of the ones that the folks over at Christian Connections said had been used on them. These are horrible, which is why I must share! Behold! Christian pick up lines that will cause you to go straight to hell if you ever seriously use them.

• Now I know why Solomon had 700 wives. He never met you.

• Is this pew taken?


• I just don't feel called to celibacy.


• You float my ark.


• I didn't believe in predestination until tonight.
  
  
• My parents are home, wanna come over?
  
  
• Is that a thinline, duo-tone, compact, ESV travel bible in your pocket?
  
  
• Let me sell you an indulgence - it's a sin to look as good as you.
  
  
• How many times do I have to walk around you before you fall for me?
  
  
• I like to arrange the substantial Christian section of my bookshelf into alphabetical order. Coffee?
  
  
• The name is Will. God's Will.
  

Sphere: Related Content