Fake Bombs and Gay Marriage
Most of you have probably heard something about Carrie Prejean.
You know the bimbo that was asked the gay marriage question by Perez Hilton. Well, she’s been interviewed by Focus on the Family in a series titled “What Would You Sacrifice For Your Beliefs?” Obviously, for this wench the first thing she would sacrifice is any common sense whatsoever… and then her clothes!
When asked by Dobson about the Perez incident Prejean replied:
“I felt as though Satan was trying to tempt me in asking me this question”
Uhhhh, OK… Let’s think about this for a moment.
The girl who feels like she has been placed on the planet by God to save the sanctity of “opposite” marriage walked across the stage in this outfit:
Hmmmm… let’s see: you’re walking around in that but what Satan is really trying to do is tempt you with a question?
Wow. The stupidity in that statement is almost overwhelming.
This is the same woman who is under fire for a number of semi-nude photos that have come to light and who daily makes it her business to try and elicit a sexual response from men… but what the devil is really trying to do is trip her up with a gay marriage question? Her statement is so theologically retarded that even Satan is like, “Please girl, give me a little credit.”
But wait there’s more!
Apparently, the group behind the pageant paid for Prejean’s brest implants. Yep, she’s keepin’ it real alright… real fake.
So by Prejean’s logic we have to protect “opposite” marriage because that’s the way God made it, but it’s OK to change and enhance the body the way God made it?
God gave you those tiny titties who are you to change what he created… so small? I mean what’s going to happen when Carrie gets to heaven with a plastic chest and Big Poppa is expecting tiny titties? And while we’re on the subject of the way God made things: what’s the chances this girl leaves the house without putting on makeup, or that the drapes match the carpet?
Honey, put the bombs away because the war’s over.
But wait there’s still more!
Apparently, this vacuous, dilettante, horrible spokesperson for Christianity is now dating Michael Phelps. She knows “Michael has dated a lot of girls, but she enjoys going out with him and isn’t serious about a relationship with him.”
Here’s the “christian” lovebirds out together:
Wow. What a paragon of virtue. She takes “opposite” relationships sooooo seriously I should really listen to what she has to say about gay relationships… or not.
Listen: perhaps you should try a little, just a little, to keep your side of the street clean before you go off and start organizations that make it their business to tell people how to keep their side of the street clean.
Just some free advice.
So let’s recap one more time:
Fake bombs, no brain, dress like a skank, trying to continually elicit a sexual response, “dating” a man who gets around, though not serious about it, but what Satan is really trying to do to is tempt her with a gay marriage question…
When you meet people, and they tell you they hate Christians because they are hypocrites, you can think of this misguided fool who thinks being against gay marriage makes her a “christian”… and yes she is a hypocrite.
To the other theologians and biblical scholars out there that know their Bible and can distinguish between cultural norms and societal values and what is actually in the Bible: there are prostitutes and Perez Hiltons closer to the kingdom than her.
Can I get an Amen?
Amen. How many biblioblogs out there display girls in bikinnis?
AMEN!!
love your blog!
Kudos to Focus on the Family, next get her a book contract (sarcasm!).
AMEN, including bonus white boy “Props” gestures
Great post, it’s even blocked by my christian provider ;(
amen
Dude, I consistently and thoroughly enjoy your blog and have passed it on to many others to enjoy as well, but I think you have stepped over the line in this one. I totally understand and agree with you that there is little or no fruit bearing from this woman’s life and that she is a bad example of what a Christian is like, especially in the limelight. But the way this was written, the language used and names called I think are unbefitting for a man who claims the name of Christ. Now, I am not legalist and definitely think there can be a time and a place for that, but I don’t think that your blog is that place. I was so surprised when I read this, I didn’t think it was you. I thought either someone else posted it, or someone hacked into your blog to make you look bad. It reminded me more of Perez Hilton than a funny, intelligent man that loves Jesus. Here is just a couple questions to think about:
Am I showing this woman grace like Christ has shown me by treating her with dignity, worth, value and honor? Would I say these things about my own mother or sister? (1 Tim. 5:2)
Am I using my words to build a fellow child of God up or to break them down? And if she is not a Christian, am I being a good bearer of the Gospel?(Eph. 5:4, 1 Thess. 5:11)
Am I using my position of influence for the glory of God or for my own?
Jordan,
I am glad that you like the blog and have shared it with others. Keep coming back and commenting.
As to your points. On the one hand I agree: we should be nice to each other and extend grace towards fellow Christ followers. That should characterize our interactions with one another.
On the other. I’m not convinced that we can always play “nice” when it comes to this sort of behaviour. Apparently, the apostle Paul didn’t either. Now, I’m not going to make a one to one correlation between myself and Paul because that would be silly, however, the Bible is supposed to be something we can learn from and model our behaviour from.
Paul use to have arguments with these guys that we call Judaizers. Judaizers “believed” in Jesus, but they also believed in circumcision. Here’s Paul showing the love of Christ to them in Philippians “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh!” So if I followed Paul’s model I could write about Prejean “Beware of this dog (I could have used another word but I am all full of restraint today!), beware of girls who expose too much flesh!”
In another letter to the church at Galatia Paul lovingly suggests that if the Judaizers like circumcision and cutting a little flesh off of their penises then why don’t they go all the way and cut off the whole thing and castrate themselves! Again, if I was to follow such a model I would have to suggest that Carrie lop off her fake boobs.
If I offended you I apologize to you, but as you note this sort of ad hominem rhetoric does not usually characterize what I do, however, every once in awhile someone passes off a lifestyle or theology that is so vapid that I go a little Paul on them.
Don’t even get me started on how Jesus treated some of his opponents…
Dude, I’m all for calling a spade a spade, and yes Jesus did use some cutting words but him and Paul we’re attacking religious people. They were attacking the Jerry Falwells and the Fred Phelps of his day. Both Jesus and Paul were generally and specifically talking to men, and so the tone is a bit harsher because men can take it. Jesus’ language and tone is much different, much softer with women. Two examples come to mind, the harlot at the well in John 4 and the woman caught in adultery in John 8. He communicates much softer to women because he knows women need more tenderness, and if they do need a sharp rebuking then it should come from other women, just like if men need to get kicked in the batteries so-to-say, it should be by other men. So, I am not saying that people should have no accountability and get away with whatever they want, but I am saying that there are specific ways to deal with each situation according to who it is we are talking to or about. Jesus dealt with both women’s sin, but he did it in a way that was honoring to them, and I think he leaves a great example to us on how to deal with things such as this.
The Jesus analogy is a little stretched…
“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
See my egalatarian spade calling is biblical… it’s a biblical principle even!
I will admit i do own a complementarian spade, and I by no means
want to start a debate on gender roles, but i was just trying to biblical as well.
I didn’t mean for my point to be an analogy but an example. if Jesus treated these sinful women like he did, then shouldn’t we as well? I mean, isn’t the point of Christianity being a “little Christ”? As for the Collosians reference, I’m not an expert theologian by any means, but since God did make us male and female, then that can’t mean that we are no longer different. 1 Peter 3:7 says that men should honor their wives as the weaker vessel, not worse off or less valuable , just weaker. I have an 18 inch neck, my girlfriend has an 18 inch waist, that sort of thing. So, I guess we can agree to disagree on this point. Dude, I love you as my brother in Christ and just want to “spur you on towards love and good deeds.” I continue to look look forward to reading your blog and learning from your excellent critique of christian culture.
Jordan there is so much wrong with what you are saying. But then again it is pretty clear why you think the FotF folk aren’t fundie idiots. Seriously dude, your view of women is way more offensive than anything Scott said in his post.
Hey Frank,
if there anything I offended you by, I apologize. If you think there is so
much wrong with what i am saying, I’d love to get your insight.
thanks man.
The idea that Jesus treated women differently from men because they were women for starters. Do you think there are different rules for women in terms of salvation? How about your view of men? So do you think that all men need this “rough” treatment?
Then there is the problem of how you define (or fail to define) what you mean by religious. Are you saying that you are not religious? What about Jesus? He was a religious Jew my friend. He was dealing with people in a way that was befitting their own states irrespective of gender, religious affiliation, etc. What is beautiful about Jesus is the sheer range of responses he gives, showing that there is something more to this than quickly categorizing people and then adopting a stance based on our assumptions.
“He communicates much softer to women because he knows women need more tenderness, and if they do need a sharp rebuking then it should come from other women” I find this extremely offensive as a woman. I think Jesus expected the same standards from women as he did from men. Perhaps you might be more convinced if there had been female Pharisees.
By the way I loved the post, Scotty
I would like to see a little more fire aimed at Focus on the Family. How about this from a quick search of their web site:
“Contrary to what our culture says, a woman’s tight shirt or short skirt is a threat to the mental, emotional and spiritual well-being of the men around her. Though it surprises most women, a female whose outfit calls attention to a good figure presents a serious temptation to even the most godly, devoted man.”
Not to mention fake breasts!
Good point.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-MEN!
Pax Christi,
She can spur me on towards love and good deeds anytime…
CAN I GET AN AMEN!!!!
Seriously though, this level of hypocrisy deserves every inch of lamblasting it can get and then some. Jordan, you wanna play the “Be like Mike” er… I mean the “Be like Christ” card on this one then let’s look at a dude who went bat poop crazy on profiteers and merchants in the temple (which I think might be hypocrisy of the same order here) with a frigging bull whip. A BULL WHIP. Now, I know it’s really nice and easy to think of Jesus who is the Christ as the Caucasian dude in the picture with perfect hair holding a lamb and two smiling upper middle class white kids who treats women perfectly and probably never even thought twice about all the hot Jewish ladies that were probably throwing themselves at him all the time (and even the most conservative, academic theologian here will admit to that probably happening more than once). But I’ve got a tenner on the fact that with bull whip in hand, and in the face of hypocrisy like that which we’re seeing here, and that which he saw in the temple, my lord and saviour probably drew blood.
Offended or not, I think it’s ok to bust out the bull whip every now and then and go Indiana Jones on actions like these.
Man, that would be ugly… screams and pools of
siliconeblood…What would the Deacons Board think?
I like fake boobs.
I agree with Jordan’s point about approaching each other with kindness and love. I do not think that this deserves it, however. What Scott does is attack more of the media animal that was created by this fiasco. What we know is what we see and what we see is shameful hypocrisy that hurts the body of Christ at the expense of beauty pageants and populist junk I am inclined to call idolatry. If we peruse the bible for what happens in situations with idolatry, you get the most vociferous and violent reactions from God and those whom God sends. This chick needs to wake the hell up if she is going to be the “good Christian” girl from the South, or she needs to shut up and let Christians do what God actually wants us to do – not get fake boobs, not parade on stage to screw up less attractive girls’ self-image, not dismantle the source of self-worth people ought to have, and not get a perverts all horny for no reason at all! She needs to earn some respect and dignity here.
Scott,
While I pretty much agree with this post, I think you might want to adjust your aim slightly. I’m not sure that Carrie really deserves the hypocrite label. If you listen to her original response on the question, she basically said that it was great to be in a country where voters could choose what they felt was best but that based on her family upbringing she felt that heterosexual marriage was the best route. She presumably knew that the person asking the question was an outspoken homosexual, and her answer was very diplomatic. It even sounded like she was trying to figure out how to avoid the question before finally diving in and answering honestly.
Now, if that was the end of it, I think we could all just nod and say, “It’s nice that she was willing to speak honestly about her personal beliefs despite the consequences,” and then turn our attention to something else. However, the conservative zealots and the right-wing fundies just love to lift up the oppressed hero(ine) based on positions on single issues. Personal life, past actions, and even positions on the vast majority of issues mean nothing to these people, so long as their hero is pro-life and anti gay marriage. And the hero’s fame and chances for speaking engagements are inversely related to how much ridicule he’s received for his positions.
So, yes, it’s worth pointing out that this girl has a number of circumstances that make her absolutely the wrong spokesperson for society’s view of sexuality. However, I think the criticism really needs to be directed at the people that idolize her despite her very contradictions.
You are right that “the conservative zealots and the right-wing fundies” need just as much or more lambasting, however, as to Prejean I didn’t comment or write anything until she started with the National Organization For Marriage garbage… watch the video from the Today show above where she says several times, “I’m just here to protect marriage…” Go to the site: http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.3836955/k.BEC6/Home.htm
She’s gone a LOT further than just her show comments.
Leave it to Steven Colbert to put things in their proper perspective:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224789/april-16-2009/the-colbert-coalition-s-anti-gay-marriage-ad
Yes, the quote-unquote pro-marriage movement is becoming as booming an industry as the quote-unquote pro-life movement… And I suspect, like its forbear, the “pro-marriage” deal is more about campaign contributions, re-election, and private donations than actually moving a position forward.
I further suspect that the “fundies” will only differ here in that they would actually throw “the GAYS” out of their churches before trying to do so with the ubiquitous supporters of state-sanctioned killing, despite the fact that gays arguably harm only themselves while warmongers and death-penalty supporters (as well as abortionists) are complicit in millions dead.
Hypocrisy, you say?
Jake:
Drew:
Just sayin, dude…
Ok, so after the required “tongue in cheek” sexist remark [insert fellatio joke here Scott], I actually went and read the transcript of the dialogue between Ms California and Ms Gay Celebrity Blogging Sensation (Perez, not Scott).
The question was: Should every state legalize same sex marriage.
Prejean’s answer was: “I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.”
Atta girl. Not only did she not even come slightly close to answering the question, she manages to start a moral poop throwing contest with a very prominent and obnoxiously loud member of the Gay community (again, Perez, not Scott). And when it’s all said and done the only media outlet that’s left to this moron is Focus On The Family… awesome.
And Brian, I’ve never gotten horny for no reason at all so clearly he wasn’t talking about me!!!
ROFL!!
“Ms Gay Celebrity Blogging Sensation (Perez, not Scott).”
- haha. That was a fair distinction.
Amen!
This is a really interesting site, but I agree with what Jordan said. I just stumbled across this and I had no idea that this site was maintained by a Christian until it was mentioned in passing. Since the Miss Cali affair is a topic that obviously people look to Christians to comment on, it was really disappointing to see you ripping into her like that. Your overarching argument that she is doing things that are biblically questionable is well taken, but that does not automatically invalidate her opinion on gay marriage. I am not a literalist by any means, but I agree with her (though maybe not primarily on biblical grounds). People who say, “oh, but you eat shrimp!” to force people into accepting the bible as an all-or-nothing deal conveniently forget that can be used with any documents in a belief system. Like the bible, the American Constitution had laws in the beginning we no longer follow–the shrimp rules if you will–but certain core beliefs remain. Are we hypocrites for continuing to use this document as the basis of our government and legal stances, even though we have admittedly interpreted it differently over time and continue to do so? Are we to accept that, because some early laws were wrong, everything else in the Constitution is equally suspect? That laws about food and fabrics are tantamount to the social issues of marriage?
Over the past few years I’ve noticed a disheartening tendency wherein “progressive” Christians (read: mainline Protestants) use “fundies” as easy game in their never-ending quest to prove that they are nothing like those ignorant inbred freaks, etc. al. Aren’t we one in Christ? On the contrary, we are proud of our brokeness and wear it as though it were a badge of honor. And of course, the fundies do this too–maybe most of all, I don’t know! But personally, I think these “Don’t shoot–I’m not a fundie!” displays are rooted in the desire to pander to the outside world. We care too much about what they think. I say this because I used to feel like I had to curry favor with secularly-minded people by proving how much I disapproved of fundies and how I totally wasn’t like them. But this said much more about my desire to be accepted by society than my genuine irritation with fundamentalists. If you try to get to know a fundamentalist, you respect them for their zeal even if you vehemently disagree. I’m also saying this as a Catholic in a rural Midwestern state who’s gotten plenty of “fundies” disrespecting my religion straight to my face.
At first I felt a measure of sympathy for Ms. Prejean because it appeared that the lefties had gone on a witch hunt. Now, I must say that I agree with the direction of your post. It’s incredibly frustrating that someone who is so concerned with being “biblically correct” would fail to take seriously the teachings of Scripture on lust, modesty, etc. I find it difficult to reconcile bodily exposition via swimsuits with Jesus’ teaching on lust and adultery (Matt. 5:28). Sure Jesus says that the one who looks on a woman to lust after her is the one guilty of adultery, but surely this implicates anyone who presents themselves to draw the eyes (and heart) of one who lusts? While I appreciate and laud believers who boldly stand on their convictions in places where it is not popular, this incident has proved to be a step backward. Any witness for Christ and any defense of biblical marriage will be overshadowed by what has now come to light.
hot babes in swimsuits are a GOOD thing
i wish we didn’t get so tangled up in knots of fear
females are genetically programmed from millions of years to flaunt themselves..
there is no condemnation
god understands
we are allowed to enjoy life!!
so please take a break from the control freakery
know that you are dearly loved
just like every other sinner
i’ve been a christian for a LONG time
the taboos and shame around sex are NOT healthy
fear not little flock
Wow, such ignorance makes me sick. Just as you claim she was out of line to address gays, you are in addressing her this way. I think what the problem is, that you are pissed you wont find a woman like her scouring the depths of the internet chat rooms and the local pubs around closing time.
I love the random (very quantum) leaps you make from opening to conclusion. Acoording to you, any woman who puts on a bathing suit is going to hell. Forget that its a part of the contest (in which a lot of money/fame is at stake) and she would have not been allowed to compete had she not participated in that event. So I guess all the contestants are going to hell.
Also, I love how you say she should keep her side of the street clean before telling people how to clean theirs, wtf!? This is a country that is ran by people who abuse their power and dont have clean records. Just for fun, look up the crimminal history of members of the senate and congress… you can even look up supreme court justices if you like… DUII’s are prevalent… and thats not even the worst, Ted Kennedy got away with murder! But lets string Prejean up by her fake boobs for standing up for her beliefs.
If you wanted to battle witts with someone, you should have picked someone on a fair playing field. Instead, you opted for the easy target that will get your blog multiple hits. Nice choice champ.
So what are your feelings on Larry Craig? I mean if being gay is alright…
Bottom line…you are a joke…I am now stupider after reading this rubbish. Prejean was asked a question, to which she sugar coated the entire answer, Perez Hilton got his Victoria Secret panties in a bunch because it wasnt the answer he wanted, he was then being a bias judge and even admitted that she lost because of her answer. Now you, in search of hits on your blog, have jumped on board this media railroad over Prejean… grats bud… Prejean cant even face you…. which is a constitutional right… but you never know, people who believe in that are hypocrites…(sarcasm intended)
While it is a common rhetorical device to adopt a dismissive attitude toward a perceived opponent–and the more dismissive you can be then by correlation the stronger your argument and the more the other person is to be disregarded–you may want to practice your reading, writing, and grammatical skills before adopting such an argumentative position. It does require a level of intelligence to be effective. I usually don’t do this but let’s play your game.
Your ignorance and inability to read what is actually written is beyond shocking. For you to type what you have above and call anyone on the planet “ignorant” is shocking. Your inability to think beyond small sentences and monosyllabic words is proven by your statement that you think I said all women in bathing suits go to hell. Now that’s a quantum leap in “logic”… it hurts to have to use that word in any sense related to any of the ignorant thoughts that came from your truncated, small, and vicious mind.
That statement would prove you stupid enough, but your writing skills makes one wonder if you even have a high school education. Learn to spell you ignorant dilettante. I understand that you will probably have to look that up. Sorry for using so many big words when clearly I am debating someone with a double digit IQ.
Do you really think accusing me of jealousy because I can’t pick a girl up like her on the internet or at the pub is in any way an argument? Wow, you are a fool’s fool. Read the about.
Your argument about those in power therefore Prejean can be a hate monger is so monumentally stupid that it even makes some of your other ignorance pale in comparison.
Grats “bud”, may your comment stand for all history as the stupidest comment ever made by the smallest mind in the history of mankind.
Go hate somewhere else in small words and poorly formed argument.
What an ignoramus.
I give this comment an amen even though I do agree with gay marriage.