West Ups the Crazy Rhetoric »« MLK Jr. on Prayer in Schools

All Hail King Eddie Long

You may know Eddie Long as the megapreacher from Georgia who recently settled a series of lawsuits from male church members who accused him of molesting them. Now, apparently, you should call him king after this bizarre ceremony that took place at his church, where a fake rabbi declared him to be a king according to Hebrew scriptures.

Aside from the weird Biblical interpretations, at one point he notes that there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet and 22 chromosomes in the human body — because humans added one more later. WTF? Reminds me of the Rev. Moon’s crowning ceremony in a Senate office building.

Comments

  1. raven says

    There are actually 24 unique chromosomes in humans.

    22 autosomes, and the X and Y. Since we are diploids, the actual number is 46.

    Long didn’t even get grade school biology right.

    I’m sure he couldn’t care less. Long doesn’t worry about little things like facts and reality.

  2. Francisco Bacopa says

    When I see something like this I feel like I’m watching aliens on another planet. But it’s Earth.

    But it doesn’t matter what the Bishop did anymore. He’s not one of us anymore. He’s God’s anointed representative now. Looks like it’s working for him.

    Also, I think the dude was mispronouncing “Birkenau”. And is that scroll even real? How many such scrolls could there be in the entire world?

  3. Phillip IV says

    22 chromosomes in the human body — because humans added one more later. WTF?

    Yup, no joke. One line of interpretation of the Book of Genesis actually claims Adam and Eve had no genitals, and no sex chromosomes, before eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Apparently, this specific loon belongs to the adherents of that theory.

    You still shouldn’t call him a “fake” rabbi – that would imply the existence of some objective standard by which one could be a “real” rabbi.

  4. Akira MacKenzie says

    One of the old stereotypes for the mentally ill was that they all though they were Napoleon Bonaparte. This self-hating gay/rapist/god-botherer declares himself a “king” and no “nice young men in their clean white coats” appear with a straight jacket to cart Long off for a permanent vacation at the insane asylum.

    Such are the customs in these “enlightened” times,

  5. says

    That is some industrial-strength weird, right there. I’m not entirely sure what I just watched. A dude getting wrapped in a scroll? Strange. Being shrouded by the word of God? Bizarre. Being raised up to heaven? What the fuck?

    This is the kind of thing that makes your every-day run-of-the-mill Christian stupidity seem profound. I’m never gonna laugh at people talking in tongues again. That’s just normal.

  6. raven says

    Being raised up to heaven? What the fuck?

    This seems to be the trend in fundieland. Upgrading your status to king or whatever.

    The most common are the New Apostolic Reformationists, Lou Engle, Cindy Jacob, Dutch Sheets, and many more.

    They claim to be:

    1. Anointed by god as New Apostles.

    2. Given magic and super powers, which seem to be the usual, healing the sick, raising the dead, talking in tongues, and smiting their enemies. And there is no proof for any of this.

    Of course, these magic and super powers are invisible to normal people. They really seem to be the power to scam money out of gullible people, hate a lot, and babble like a loon.

    When your belief system isn’t anchored in reality and unprovable, anything goes. It’s likely to continue since it’s all make believe.

    Rev. Moon claims to be jesus christ the second, one of a few. There are two Popes now, one in the Vatican, one in Salt Lake City. All that is left is for someone to claim they are god or the holy ghost, and found a new cult.

  7. dingojack says

    ‘When theocracy comes to America, it will be wrapped in a scroll and speaking in tongues.’

    Dingo

  8. says

    So this guy got busted for molesting men, yet all those people come to hear him? That baffles the mind.

    And: would any Jewish readers care to comment on the treatment of the scrolls? It didn’t exactly look proper, to me.

  9. N. Nescio says

    I find this especially fascinating, and see it as part of the process of how religions evolve as time goes by. While most mainstream Christians would probably label this idolatry and be righteously irate, there’s about 10,000 people in that mega-church cheering and applauding this nonsense, plus however many watched that on television and bought into it. Give it another 50 years and see where it leads.

    To all the fundies who demand “evidence for evolution”:

    Here it is!

  10. Aquaria says

    So this guy got busted for molesting men, yet all those people come to hear him? That baffles the mind.

    People are flocking to Petie Popoff again, even though he was nailed on national TV as a fraud.

    People flocked to Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Garner Ted Armstrong and etc after they were brought down by their own weaknesses.

    It happens time after time after time.

    When people have been brainwashed from birth into turning off their minds so that they can believe only X tenets coming from Y authority, they believe in Y spouting X, even if Y does things that negate or are anathema to X. Nothing can sway them from this stupidity; they’ve been indoctrinated not to accept the “lies” of the material world, after all, and are left to believe that only Y knows the truth, so everyone else is wrong.

    But even when the truth is plain to them, they’ll go right back to believing another Y spouting X, and it starts all over again. If they’re not already following a lot of the Ys, already. Popoff followers aren’t above being swayed by the likes of Benny Hinn at the same time. One of my grandmother’s equally elderly neighbors was giving money to Bakker, Swaggart and Pat Robertson simultaneously. What a nightmare that was for her family…

  11. says

    I’ll be interested to see if his protege in fleecing the sheep humbly spreading the word of the lord in NZ Bishop Brian Tamaki is watching and taking notes. I know he trawls in his Maserati looking for recruits in the socially deprived mainly Polynesian areas of South Auckland. How long will it be before the poor are paying for another coronation?

  12. Reginald Selkirk says

    Blessed are the humble. That apparently does not include Eddy Long.
    .
    Scrolls: Foreskin? Belt of righteousness? Lambskins? WTF?
    .
    At 04:00:
    “22 pairs of chromosomes” – kind of true; as noted, the sex chromosomes X and Y in men do not match, but women have a pair of Xs.
    .
    “The 23rd was added by man” – this is ass-backwards. All the other apes, including our shared ancestors with chimpanzees, have 48 chromosomes. In the human lineage, a chromosomal fusion occured, reducing the number by two, without a loss of information. This, by the way, is strong evidence for evolution and for shared ancestry of apes and humans.
    .
    There are 22 amino acids” – Total BS. The consensus genetic code has 20 amino acids which are built into proteins by ribosomes. There are some unusual organisms which code for extras. There are numerous amino acids which are modified in proteins after their synthesis. And there are lots and lots of amino acids which are not coded for in the genetic code at all.
    .
    @ 9 minutes: “God has made a profit out of you” – I hope I spelled that right.

  13. Al Stefanelli says

    Ah, the joys of living in the Atlanta Metro area. Creflo Dollar lives up the street from me, too. What a bunch of fucking idiots… I guess King Reverend Bishop Eddie long, better known by his porn name “King Long,” needed a new gimmick, seeing as how membership in his church is declining (along with tithes) and people are protesting outside his church.

  14. Francisco Bacopa says

    And just where the fuck is Birkendall?

    I think he’s referring to Birkenau, a camp adjacent to Auschwitz where most of the actual killing took place. Odd sort of thing for a Messianic Rabbi now to know.

  15. James B says

    <<>>>

    I know I’m not the only who thought of that scene during Eddie Long’s umm… coronation.

  16. says

    The clothes these rightwing Christians wear are fascinating. If I saw that guy walking down the street,I would surely pull out my phone to snap a photo. And what about collecting torahs? Reminds me of David Barton and how he collects old documents. Kind of a fetish with these people.

  17. James B says

    Ack HTML Formatting got me

    [[[[

    Woman: Well how’d you become king then?

    King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.

    Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
    ]]]]

    I know I’m not the only who thought of that scene during Eddie Long’s umm… coronation.

  18. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    And: would any Jewish readers care to comment on the treatment of the scrolls? It didn’t exactly look proper, to me.

    Oh, hell, yeah I would.

    This is a monstrous insult to the traditions of respect for the torah scrolls. he also doesn’t know crap. “It takes 3.5 years” to write a scroll, he says?

    Actually they are normally written in 1 or 2 years. Really fast writers do it in 1, most do it in 2. But moreover, you do it in an even number of years. The “and a half” gives it away as someone who doesn’t know crap.

    I’m not saying that an individual scroll might not take 3.5 years to inscribe. But that would be normal. If he said, “this scroll” took 3.5 years, he might have been right, but it would have been highly unusual. It is normally done in an even number of years because there is an attempt to write according to the schedule of Parsha. The Torah is meant to be read every year, with one section or parsha read every week. The best scribes write not just one parsha per week, but that specific week’s parsha during that specific week. When you write your first scroll, it can take a lot longer than it will take in the future, and apprentices or first time-solo scribes will not write according to the Parsha schedule because they just can’t. But after you’ve done your apprentice scroll and your first solo scroll, you would write according to a schedule. If you’re not a super-master scribe, you write only 1/2 that week’s parsha & leave an exact number of lines blank then start the first half of next week’s parsha at the beginning of next week, etc. The next year you come back & fill in what you didn’t write before.

    As for “most jews have never come near” a scroll, that’s complete crap. It’s tradition to touch the scroll-cover with your siddur (book of prayers) or sometimes some other proxy before the scroll is opened. That’s right – the scroll is paraded around the congregation & everyone comes close enough to touch with a hand, though instead they only touch the cover & only touch that with a proxy. Still, that’s far different than 90% of jews never coming near a scroll!!!

    And the thing about, “Let’s remove the foreskin” of the scroll? That’s just sick stuff there. The covers are not made of foreskins and are never referred to as metaphorical foreskins that I’m aware. There might be some twisted joke in some communities, but no, I’ve never heard that.

    And then the part about only touching it with your finger? No. You only touch it with a wooden wand with a sculpture of a hand extending a pointer finger. It’s usually silver. So a piece of silver touches the scroll, but NOT your finger. A piece of art that looks like a finger.

    If this man was any sort of rabbi, he would know that it was horribly offensive to religious jews to touch the scroll the way that he did and the wrapping? even more so.

    This man was not a rabbi and he clearly was making things up.
    ======================

    @Phillip IV – #4

    I also want to respond to the bit above about implying that there’s no objective standard for being a “real” rabbi.

    There are objective standards. Just like there are objective standards by which one becomes a Catholic priest or baptist minister.

    There are no standards to determine if god has invested such a person with power, but there are actually standards for whether or not such a person is a rabbi.

    And, FFS, rabbis DON’T have any reputation or imputation of magical powers the way that priests & ministers do. They don’t magic crackers or anything else. Rabbis have the same powers that everyone else in the congregation has: they can ask god for things. Any reputation or imputation of magic is vested in god, not a person.

    So I don’t know what you’re getting at here.

    I’m not saying there is a god with magical powers, but your premise when you say, “You still shouldn’t call him a “fake” rabbi – that would imply the existence of some objective standard by which one could be a “real” rabbi,” is false.

  19. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    btw. I watched like the first minute I was so appalled. There’s more that I didn’t mention from the first minute….but also I can’t speak to anything after that, so there’s got to be more from the part I didn’t watch as well.

    Plus, of course, the # of chromosomes thing. What a moron.

  20. Ichthyic says

    So I don’t know what you’re getting at here.

    I think he’s implying that the rituals and studies you claim create a “real” rabbi, are simply a matter of historical context, nothing more.

    You claiming all these ritualistic details “identify” someone as real, is just as silly as Eddie Long claiming the rituals his “rabbi” followed were right and correct for their “religion”. The only thing you have going for your claim is precedence.

    It’s all stuff and nonsense, IOW, and the rituals are simply there to impress the rubes. You say there’s no “magic” involved, but, yes, there is. With rabbis the rituals ARE the “magic”.

    In that sense, no there is no real difference between your “authentic” rabbi, and one that uses made up but similar rituals.

    If I get his drift, it’s basically a Scotsman argument.

    How is what you’re saying any different from some random Baptist claiming Catholics are “true xians”?

  21. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    You claiming all these ritualistic details “identify” someone as real, is just as silly as Eddie Long claiming the rituals his “rabbi” followed were right and correct for their “religion”. The only thing you have going for your claim is precedence.

    Why does it matter if the test came from a specific historical context. There is an objective test to see who is a US citizen, or UK citizen, or Uganda citizen – and every single one of those tests are dependent on historical accidents. All we have going for us is precedence. Uganda could easily have been considered a “United Kingdom” and been named as such. Then who was a citizen of the “United Kingdom” would be completely different. Or the borders could have been drawn differently, leading to different political centers of gravity and we could have ended up with no country analogous to Uganda at all, nor with that name.

    Also, I didn’t say that those rituals are at all involved in making one a rabbi. I said that a real rabbi (at least one who hadn’t had a serious brain injury or mental illness or some other true break with the past that involved a loss of knowledge) would know that these rituals have nothing to do with rituals involved in rabbinic Judaism, and most would also know that they had nothing to do with Temple Judaism as well.

    I’m not saying that these ritualistic details “identify” someone. Other factors ID someone, but I’m asserting that I don’t believe that someone who met those other criteria would act in this way. Yes, it’s APPEARS to be a no true scotsman argument, but is decidedly different in character. What about someone who claimed to be Pope – maybe Ratzinger is sick for several weeks and out of the media’s gaze & someone takes advantage – going out wining, dining, claiming to want to leave the chuch & star in a porno, etc. People would look at his behavior & say, ‘I don’t believe that’s the pope’ but how one is determined to be the pope isn’t by whether or not the person has ever expressed a desire to star in a porno. You see the difference?

    A no true scotsman argument excludes behavior from a community, not people, because anywhere behavior is seen it can’t possibly come from the “scots” community in question. This is simply observing lack of knowledge appropriate to a job and saying the person clearly isn’t someone who does that job. Someone claiming to be an engineer who doesn’t know F=MA might be doubted as an engineer.

    This isn’t the test for a “true” rabbi. The test/s is/are very different and is elucidated in specific places in Talmud and other commentary. It’s just evidence that a specific person isn’t one.

    There’s an answer as to whether someone is a Catholic. You can believe that the Catholic religion is based on magical thinking and that there is no god for Catholics to pray to. But that still doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a Catholic community to which some people belong and some people don’t. And if some belong and some don’t, then you can have someone who isn’t a member *claim* membership falsely.

    Likewise, you can have someone claim to be a member of the Canadian parliament. This claim can be true or false. There can be an objective test for this claim. And yet how this membership is determined is total historical accident.

    How is that different from the question of who is a real rabbi?

  22. Pinky says

    I think I saw one of the sedan chair slaves say: “Hey King Eddie start laying off the snacks, my back is killing me.”

  23. Phillip IV says

    Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden @ #26:

    There is an objective test to see who is a US citizen, or UK citizen, or Uganda citizen (…)

    There’s an answer as to whether someone is a Catholic. (…)

    How is that different from the question of who is a real rabbi?

    These three cases aren’t that different at all, but the first two of them are not as clear-cut as you make them to be.

    In the first case, citizenship, an objective standard does exist, but only in case and as long as there is agreement regarding governmental authority. This should normally be the case, but in cases where opposing claims of governmental authority exists, for example regarding China and Taiwan, the issue already gets vastly more complicated. But in this case, there is at least fundamental agreement that the qualification in question, citizenship, does exist as a meaningful construct, and there is no reliance on metaphysical claims.

    The other two cases do involve such claims, and are thus even less clear-cut. While “Membership in the Catholic Church” is obviously an objective standard, “being a Catholic” is a lot more controversial, and there is a considerable amount of Scotsmanning going on between the various wings and sub-groups within (or just without) the Catholic Church. Add to that the many people who are only nominally Catholic, and there is hardly any objectivity left to such a standard.

    And in the last case, all we have are conflicting claims of metaphysical authority. While the standards involved are, in themselves, objective, there is no objective way to determine the validity. An Orthodox rabbi might reject the validity of a Reform rabbi’s rabbinate, and the loon in that video might very well have earned his rabbinate by getting 5 of 10 multiple choice question right on a form provided by “Jews for Jesus” – but, ultimately, even the most respected yeshiva bases the validity of its certificates on unproven claims of metaphysical authority. There is no way to objectively validate those claims, and that goes for Yeshiva University just as much as Jews for Jesus.

  24. says

    This is the most batshit-ridiculous act of idolatry I’ve seen in a LONG time. And yes, most of the Christians I’ve known, even the most conservative, would call it idolatry too.

    So they drape a lot of sacred objects all over this fool, and then parade him around the stage like he’s a sacred object himself. He looked kind of puzzled, like he’s starting to question whether any of this makes any real sense.

    Yet more proof that a huge chunk of America’s “Christians” are more enamoured of OT authoritarianism than of NT wisdom and compassion.

  25. Rick Pikul says

    I can see how someone could end up taking a non-even number of years to write a torah scroll. If you get faster over the period you are doing the writing, you could finish the latter half the year before the first half.

  26. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Phillip IV:

    there is at least fundamental agreement that the qualification in question, citizenship, does exist as a meaningful construct, and there is no reliance on metaphysical claims.

    What about being a rabbi depends on metaphysical claims?

    Do you know the qualifications of being a rabbi?

    Do you have any clue that being a rabbi is different from being a priest in Temple Judaism. Do you know anything about what happened when political existence of Judea/Israel ended in ~70c.e. and the area was renamed Palestine after the Philistines and the temple was destroyed and communities of Jews reorganized around a communitarian ideal instead of the previous theocratic monarchy that had existed the previous 200+ years from the time of the Maccabbean wars to the Roman destruction of the temple?

    Do you have any idea what makes a rabbi officially a rabbi?

    If you don’t, then maybe you shouldn’t be arguing about how the test for being a rabbi isn’t objective since you don’t appear to know what the test is…

    Look, I’m not claiming that the metaphysical claims of Judaism are true. I’m just claiming that, like citizenship claims that have objective bases but can occasionally be confusing due to political transitions or multiple citizenship, being a rabbi has actual meaning and one can say someone is or isn’t a rabbi in the same way someone can say someone is or isn’t Jamaican. It’s actually even more authoritative than being able to say that one is or isn’t a Catholic priest – and that’s a factual question. These are factual matters regardless of how you try to pretend that they aren’t.

    And since you don’t seem to know anything about being named to the rabbinate (based on your insistence that this involves, “ultimately, even the most respected yeshiva bases the validity of its certificates on unproven claims of metaphysical authority.”) I don’t know why you would even argue this.

    Tell me: what makes a rabbi a rabbi? Do you know the qualifications demanded and why those qualifications are used?

    Here’s a hint: the qualifications are independent of the body that establishes a yeshiva. Thus “Jews for Jesus” could give out a true false test with 10 questions, but that wouldn’t have anything to do with the long-held standards for being a rabbi (teacher) to one’s community.

  27. Phillip IV says

    Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden @ #31:

    What about being a rabbi depends on metaphysical claims?/blockquote>

    The core aspect, in fact: the significance of the scholastic content.

    In science or law, the significance of the educational contents can be checked against reality, but in religion you only have metaphysical claims or tradition. And while tradition would be the stronger argument, the authorities in question tend to actually prefer the metaphysical argument (i.e. they prefer to derive their authority from divinity rather than tradition). And that standard is simply not verifiable from the outside. The distinctions between the canonical parts of the Bible and the apocrypha, and then between both and other sources of the same time and region, are ultimately arbitrary, resting on authority which in turn rests on metaphysical claims, and assumes

    And it’s not really different for Catholic priests – that’s not a factual question, either. If my neighbor were to start claiming to be the pope tomorrow, and that only the persons he names to the priesthood are actually priests, and all the decrees of that pretender in Rome are invalid – aside from tradition, there wouldn’t be any standard I could apply to find his claims less valid than Benedict’s.

  28. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    And tradition wouldn’t be reasonably applicable? The fact that millions of people call themselves Catholic, a hierarchy exists to serve those people which also calls itself Catholic, & on & on, none of that would make you think, “Gee, He’s not actually *the* Pope. He is clearly using commonly understood language in ways that are so different from the common definition and without reference to any other specific definition, that the only reasonable description of his claim is false”?

    Really? Some random shmo says he’s the head of the Catholic church and your response is, “Sure. I buy that.”

    That’s just plain disingenuous.

    look, there’s nothing but tradition that constrains what we mean when we say the President of the United States or the Queen of England. So if I call myself the Queen of England and/or POTUS, you’ll just say, “Okay, sure. I guess your claim is as valid as the next one.”

    Or will you only do that with the Queen of England because the claim to be Queen of England is based on a theological conceit to absolute rule and, without the anointing by the Church of England there is no monarch of the state – and who’s to say who is the Church of England?

    But POTUS is described in a document that refers to a mysterious creator but who isn’t described as personally intervening in the choice of president and thus, at a level of remove, we can call POTUS real but not the Queen of England?

    Seriously? What makes you so insistent on this topic?

    And why do you keep saying that if the theological claims of rabbinical Judaism aren’t true that there is no test for a Rabbi? The rabbinical qualification are found in documents that ID the creator, but the ENTIRE POINT of the rabbinate is that they AREN’T the same as the priestly caste of Levites. Much like the constitution references a “creator” but spells out specific tests for becoming president that require no intervention from a deity (unlike becoming monarch of England, which does require the intervention of a deity).

    Shakespeare references God over & over & over. Is it impossible to be a professor of Shakespearean studies without Shakespeare’s Christianity first being validated? After all, how can you “understand” Shakespeare if all his writings about God/s are B.S.? This is what you’re arguing.

    Actually, even worse! You’re arguing that unless Shakespeare’s plays are TRUE then there is no and can be no specific criteria for determining degrees in Shakespearean Literature.

    I am astounded that you believe that Rabbi is a theological position AND you believe that you know what you are talking about.

    There are quite a number of atheist rabbis out there, and while they are generally agreed to have past the tests for the rabbinate, some people believe that there is a “spirit” of the rule being broken. But that’s the thing – there are rules. The atheist rabbis have passed them. And it is generally non-controversial to most Jews that these Yeshiva graduates are, in fact, rabbis. The debate is over whether this is a good thing or not with only a few going so far as to say that they should lose their status as rabbis – despite no rule existing saying that if the rabbi feels in hir heart that a divine/magical god doesn’t exist then the rabbi somehow is stripped of graduation from the yeshiva.

    I won’t post again, but I write all this for those who think that you actually have a point with the idea that if god doesn’t exist that a person hasn’t actually passed the tests set up for a person to join the rabbinate.

    Just like whether Shakespeare’s plays are true or not has nothing to do with whether one can be a professor of Shakespearean literature (or even just graduate with a PhD in Shakespearean Lit). The tests for completing the schooling are independent of whether or not the plays (or the Torah) are true.

  29. dingojack says

    Yes but is Bishop Long a real bishop? How could one tell?
    Dingo
    —–
    How do I know anything is real?
    Do you exist? Do I? Does anything? etc. [/Philosophy 101 student]
    @@

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply