40 years! »« Mitchell & Webb: Atheist Watermelon

Vile child-rapist Tony Alamo is going down!

In the wake of recent, more interesting news, the child-sex trial of cult leader Tony Alamo — whose followers used to circulate his full-color newsletters under windshield wipers all around Austin and elsewhere — has been playing out largely under the radar. What stuns me about all of this is not just the ghastly spectacle of a senior citizen “marrying” little girls as young as eight or ten. It’s the way in which Alamo — or, shit, any authority figure at all — can exert such a powerful and hypnotic hold over his followers that the very parents of these little girls themselves became active participants in the violation of their children.

This is the authoritarianism of religion taken to its sickest inevitable extreme, and it illustrates the profound danger of accepting absolute authority as a concept in the first place. And I see this whole trial as a perfect chance to engage mainstream Christians, who, I suspect, would not hesitate to condemn Alamo’s actions in the strongest possible terms. Yes, what Alamo did to these girls is unspeakably appalling, no less so than that he justified it by claiming it’s what God wanted. But look at scripture, and you’ll see episodes of child abuse either directly prompted by divine command (Abe and Isaac) or carried out with tacit divine approval, such as the scene in Genesis 19 in which Lot offers his two virgin daughters to a lust-crazed mob (who, being gay, say no thanks).

Lot’s daughters don’t seem to have been all that offended at being offered as sexmeat by their father, since, later in the same chapter, they get him drunk and fuck him. Those biblical family values, I tell ya! Anyway, the point is: Is what Alamo did to children in the name of God any more reprehensible than what God either orders or tolerates seeing done to kids in the Bible, and the way their parents are so agreeable to it?

Comments

  1. says

    Did anyone hear Rick Sanchez interview Alamo this afternoon? Alamo was shouting about how he has a "right to preach the Gospel". I had hoped someone would have uploaded the clip, but I s'pose out of the ten people who watch Rick, no one thought it as clip worthy as I.While looking for the clip I happened on this site:http://www.tonyalamonews.com/That seems to cover the gruesome details of this unrepentant pedophile pretty well if anyone want to churn their stomach on that.

  2. says

    Anyway, the point is: Is what Alamo did to children in the name of God any more reprehensible than what God either orders or tolerates seeing done to kids in the Bible, and the way their parents are so agreeable to it?As Urban Wild Cat pointed out, at least God has the excuse of being fictional. Still, to the average believer the difference is that God is supposedly all- knowing and all- powerful. Believers are as capable as any to see the immorality of an act as any other, but when it comes to their own beliefs they have blinders on and the faith- driven spin is added.

  3. says

    I got suckered/dragged into going to my grandmother's church, and their spin on Lot's story was that it was his fault for leaving the countryside. The sermon could best be summarized as "The world is out to get us, and if we try to fit in, or even tolerate our neighbors, then it will lead us away from god". But the punchline to the story was that living in the city had made Lot so sinful that offering his daughters seemed like a reasonable compromise. I somehow doubt if that is how it was originally interpreted, but I wanted to float the concept by some of the rest of you.

  4. says

    YOU BUNCH OF LYING DEVILS. THE MEDIA ALWAYS DO WHAT THE GOVERNMENT TELL THEM IS TO SLANDER GOOD BIBLE BELIEVING PEOPLE LIKE TONY ALAMO THE GREATEST PROPHET OF THESE LAST DAYS. HE WON MY SOUL TO THE LORD AND MANY SOULS ON MANY WATERS, TONY ALAMO IS NOT GOING DOWN HE IS GOING UP TO PARADISE, HE NOT GOING DOWN YOU DEVILS FROM THE PITS OF HELL YOU WILL BE GOING INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE IS THE SECOND DEATH YOU LYING DOGS PIGS YOU CAN OINK OINK OINK ALL DAY ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DO NOT KNOW ABOUT, OH YES TONY IS GOING UP TO THE BEAUTIFUL PLACE GOD GOT FOR THOSE THAT LOVE HIM. IN THE GOLDEN CITY WHERE GOD IS THE LIGHT.ALL THE LIES YOU TELLING ON TONY ALAMO IS ALL LIES TO SET HIM UP BECAUSE HE EXPOSE YOUR STINK ALL LYING MONSTROUS CULT YOU GONE STAY ATHEIST DEVIL YOU ALL ARE CHILD

  5. says

    You guys are all like the Catholics priests child molester that constantly in your butts with all kinds of toys all those woman reprobates that lying on Tony Alamo was bride received money we call that bribery devil not pedophile all those woman are pure ungly tony alam is also legally state blind he only can see god word. thats why hell have enlarge herself for people like you who lie lie and false excuse never get the victim to tell the truth,

  6. says

    That was my favorite pair of hate mails in recent memory. In fact I'm tempted to spin off a "we get comments" thread so nobody misses them.

  7. Martin says

    In the way I suspect you define the term, no.I'd describe myself as a moral rationalist and moral pragmatist.If you want "moral relativists," I'd say you need look no farther than those most fervent and devout in their religion. Take fellows like Sanford and Ensign, both senators who eagerly condemned Bill Clinton's philandering and who were later revealed to have a little difficulty keeping their own zippers shut around women not their wives. I have seen so many instances of "do as I say, not as I do" from religious figures, that moral hypocrisy among the religious has pretty much become a cliché. Alamo is the latest (and one of the worst) in a long history of religious leaders who have simply used their beliefs as a piety shield, from behind which any immoral act, no matter how egregious, can be justified through the old standby "God told me to."

  8. Martin says

    Assuming allexus8 is not a Poe (the whole unbroken-text-in-all-caps thing is close to cliché), then yes, those comments are a steaming, scrumptious bowl of Awesome Porridge.

  9. says

    Does Mr. Freethinker have anything of value to contribute? Cause all he seems to do lately is come be "Oh how can you object to anything, you don't believe in a god/absolutes/santa".

  10. says

    ALso both Sandford and Enisgn are part of "The Fellowship" which holds in it's theology that those chosen by god are pretty much allowed to do whatever they want. They use King David as an example. Their theology doesn't call for good or evil…just to OBEY

  11. says

    Perhaps I should ask if you think morals are subjective or objective.For example, lets take the Holocaust.An objectivist would sat it was wrong because it violate some objective moral standard and it would be wrong regardless of the opinion of the society or cultural standards in Germany or Europe.As for moral rationalism I believe I am one of those too. I was really talking about ontology (as in what foundations these moral truths have ad why makes them binding) as opposed to epistemology (how we know and reason about moral truths).And well Ing there isn't much to say. Tony Alamo's actions we objectively immoral and he shouldn't have done them.Same with those senators.

  12. says

    The difference is that your objective morality probably is not the same as a non-religious persons. Is something objectively wrong because God said so or because it harms people?For clarity I'd like to purpose future definitions to aid in discussionObjectivity: Per situation there is an objective best choice of action. an action's morality is based on the action and decision itself, not how the person commiting the act judges the actionSubjectivity: morality is based on a individual's judgment, everyone does what they think is moral and no one's claim to morality is any more rightAuthoritarian: A person or persons or being has the authority to decide morality. morality is based upon their decisions. This is inherently a sub-set of subjectivity. Relativity: The best/moral action in any given situation is contingent upon the situation itself. The sum total of all parts of a system determine what is the best decision.Arelativistity: Actions are inherently good or bad. The variables of the system do not effect the morality of the actions eg. murder is always wrong, theft is always wrong.I believe it is somewhat fair to say that most secularists are Objective/Relativists. Post-modernists are by definition Subjectivist/relativist. Some theists are subjective relativists some are objective arelativists, etc etc.

  13. says

    I am not listening to a word you got to say god word the same today yesterday forever, you excuse a man of something wrong from what a bunch of whores say about, as much mercy you judge will be judge back to you a gain full. what measure with what you reap you will soar, all i know those girls is lying on Tony Alamo he only speak the truth big word are little words those not matters as long as the truth is being told. he tony alamo can save souls too.

  14. says

    TONY ALAMO SHOULD NOT GIVE HIS PEARLS TO THE SWINE, THE DEVILS THAT NOT WORTHY OF HIS WORD, THOSE UNBELIEVER, SHOULD BE CAST IN THE LAKE OF FIRE THAT BURN WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONES INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE YOU NONE BIBLE BELIEVER DEVILS BLOOD OF JESUS AGAINST YOU LYING DEVILS. NOT WORTHY OF THE CITY OF LIGHT DEVIL GO TO HELL WITH YOUR SMALL WORD NOT WORTH DUNG.

  15. says

    See Authoritarian.Should we make another category for "Batshit" ?(Word verification TALLYPOE clearly it is a sign from Teddy Roosevelt!)

  16. says

    To allexus8:I don't know if you are a Poe or not but I do love the fact that you refer to a group of 8 to 19 year old girls as "a bunch of whores".

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>