Divisible By Pi

Mike Adams appears to be the eternal pimple on the arse of academia; he’s a little bit like a Tickle-Me-Elmo, only instead of giggling he cries Christian persecution whenever an atheist so much as tries to hug him.

Now he’s written a lovely little screed over at Townhall.com, combining the three of the things he seems to love the most in life: Atheist bashing, misogyny, and homophobic bigotry.

He begins:

If Christianity dies in America it will not be for a lack of evidence of its truthfulness.

*chortle*

It will be for a lack of dissemination of the evidence of its truthfulness. And the blame for the lack dissemination of that evidence will fall squarely on the shoulders of Christian men who are simply too weak and passive to deserve to be called “Christian” or “men.”

And potentially on the women who failed to make them adequate sandwiches! Because they weren’t in the kitchen enough, amirite?

In the last few months, I have been in no less than one dozen arguments with “Christian men” who have attempted to persuade me to stop my advocacy of, and direct involvement in, litigation against public universities. [...] Three common arguments I have heard, and my brief responses to them, follow:

Brilliant — Christians arguing with Christians about whose Jesus is better. This ought to be good…

Argument for passivity: In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek to whoever slaps us on our right cheek. How do you reconcile that with your assertion that “a lawsuit a day keeps the atheists at bay”?

Oooh! Not only did Jesus say that, but it appears your opponent has come up with a witty rhyme to represent your position. How are you gonna respond to THAT?

This one is easy. A slap on the face is a personal insult. Jesus is clearly admonishing us to ignore such personal insults; He isn’t saying we can’t aggressively call out evil. Jesus Himself aggressively called out evil as recorded later in the same Gospel (Matthew 23).

Fair enough. That’s a fairly decent response actually; presumably this must be some great evil he’s calling out…

This coming year I am planning a series of legal challenges to universities that have launched “Queer Resource Centers” and “LGBTQIA Centers” on campus.

…or, alternately, he could just be a giant bigot. Not that I didn’t prepare you for this eventuality, of course.

The goal is not to shut the centers down but, instead, to force them to present issues in a more balanced fashion.

The balls this man has must be huge…it’s a pity they’re dangling from his forehead.

Seriously — you’ve got organisations starting up at universities to help oft discriminated against youths find themselves and a community; students who may be struggling with their sexual identities, whose parents may not accept them for who they are.

And you want to present issues in a ‘balanced fashion’? Balanced according to who? I’ll tell you what — they sure as hell don’t need to hear your opinions about how homosexuality is a choice and a sin.

For example, those centers using mandatory student activity fees to bolster the case for gay marriage will be pressured (legally) to invite speakers like Frank Turek who will argue the other side of the issue.

Presumably then creationist groups will also be required to have evolutionary biologists come in to dispel creationist myths, and Christian groups will have mandatory presentations by atheists.

When I launch these challenges the “liberal” blogs will say I am secretly gay. That is the way they always respond.

Really? The scare-quote-surrounded-liberal blogs are always calling you gay? Care to name any?

Oh, and just in case you were wondering, I don’t happen to think that you’re gay, Mike. At this stage I’m starting to think you might be afraid of your own penis.

It’s a silly personal insult revealing nothing more than the unfortunate fact that many gays secretly hate themselves.

Holy crap, Mike…you really are a hateful, snivelling little man.

Moving on, then:

Argument for passivity: In Luke 6:29, Jesus urges that one who has his coat taken from him to should also hand over his tunic. Doesn’t that suggest that we should not resist campus efforts to take away Christian rights?

Ah, yes, of course. If there’s one thing Christians have displayed from the Crusades to the Ugandan homosexuality laws, it’s an almost Ghandi like level of commitment to passivity.

The coat and tunic are material things. We would do well to hand over material things to those in need. If we were more generous on the front end, people would be less inclined to steal.

The irony that this is coming from a staunch supported of the Republican party could not be more obvious if we used all of the money currently spent on welfare programs to buy a giant neon ‘irony’ sign and launch into orbit.

But religious liberty is not a material thing. It is a non-material thing that is the principal basis for this nation’s founding. It belongs to everyone and, therefore, cannot be handed over by any one individual to any other individual.

Fair enough. Of course, I’m not sure what sacrificing religious liberty has to do with not suing universities for the heinous crime of not sanctioning bigotry…

Argument for passivity: Doesn’t the Bible tell us to abide by laws and submit to the authority of government?

Yeah, but it also tells you not to wear a cotton/nylon blend, so screw it, right?

It sure does. And the First Amendment is the law of the land. When it is violated, we should protest by using the First Amendment. If our protests are ignored we should use civil litigation to uphold the laws that lawless secular humanists seek to destroy. The key word here is “civil.” Christians should not hurl stones in the streets. They should remain civil by filing civil suits.

You know, I really hate to shit on your parade…but nobody is violating your first amendment rights by allowing universities to have gay and lesbian organisations.

You might think your rights are being trampled on, but that’s only because you’ve been raised in privilege. Your beliefs have always unjustly been granted a place at tables from which it should have been excluded, under the guise of American values and culture.

The thought that people who are fundamentally different from you, people you may even regard as abhorrent, have access to public funding shocks and appals you. That they can publicly espouse a view at odds with your particular dogma, you view as a breach of your civil liberties.

But it’s not. And it’s not their fault. It’s your bigotry, and quite frankly you can shove it.

Filed under: Politics, Religion