Astaroth, prince of Hell, from J.A.S. Collin de Plancy, Dictionnaire Infernal. Original illustration by Louis Breton, engraved by M. Jarrault.
Oh, Gordon Klingenschmitt is on a tear again, and it’s the same old shit, but now, all democrats must be demon accessible, that’s just how it is, you betcha. If you’ve already had an internal whisper, bet this is about abortion, declare bingo.
Religious Right activist and former Colorado state legislator Gordon Klingenschmitt said on a recent episode of his “Pray In Jesus Name” program that Democratic leaders are declaring that “if you don’t serve the devil, you can’t be a good Democrat.”
Klingenschmitt was reacting to recent comments from Sen. Dick Durbin and DNC chairman Tom Perez asserting that Democrats should support Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make her own reproductive health choices, which he interpreted as meaning that people must agree to be ruled by demons in order to be Democrats.
Hmmm. Two men, who have managed to figure out that yes, women are actual human beings with a right to bodily autonomy, just like that which men enjoy. Definitely has to be demons, couldn’t possibly be mildly enlightened thinking, no.
“If the Bible says that something is sin,” Klingenschmitt said, “and it’s a sin to commit acts of murder against innocent children, then you can tell who the demonic spirits … are influencing when you see people like Tom Perez and Dick Durbin saying, ‘Not only shall we kill innocent children as a matter of policy, citing Roe v. Wade, not only shall we use American taxpayer dollars to pay for the shedding of innocent blood but, if you’re not demonic like we are, you can’t be a Democrat like we are.’”
Let’s break this down a bit. “If the bible says that something is a sin”, what does that matter to me? I’m not christian, and I could not possibly care less what that mess of a pastiche says about anything. Last time I looked, uStates is still not a theocracy, even as it slides down the drain. Well, not officially, anyway, so I’m not obligated to obey inquisitorial law, let alone pay attention to it.
As has come up before, many times, the bible is not the book you want people looking into to if you’re going to discuss acts of murder against innocent children. The bible is replete with the blood of innocent children, the slaughter generally accounted with a dark and triumphant glee, as if dashing the heads of infants against rocks was a grand and cheery thing to do to get your day started. Of course, when you’re talking about terminating an unwanted pregnancy, you are not talking about murdering a child. Not that christians like that distinction being made, but that is reality, and it would be nice if christians could face it just once.
And because it seems this needs to be said every five fucking seconds, federal monies do not fund terminations, full stop. The constant melodramatic hyperbole of idiotic christians is exhausting. I have no idea of where they get the energy. Demons, perhaps.
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. — Leviticus 27:6
According to the bible, if an infant is under a month old, it doesn’t exist, basically. It has no value. Hard to see how a zygote would figure into all that. You can see more of what the bible has to say about abortion here. Then you have cheery stuff like this:
Hosea 9:14- Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
Hosea 9:16 – Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.
Hosea 13:16 -Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Lovely stuff, ennit? I have little use for the bible, to say the least. Now, one thing which is not mentioned in all this bloodlust towards women and children: demons. Don’t figure into it at all, no, it’s just good ol’ El Shaddai, also known as ‘god’. When your ‘god’ is such a nasty, psychopathic, genocidal maniac, I think I’d probably take my chances with the demons, who don’t seem to do much at all. Of course, none of these characters are real, so it doesn’t much matter. What does matter are fucking idiots like Gordon, who want to play real world pretend with this nonsense. If you want to sit in your own dwelling or in your place of worship, and fantasise and role play this dreck, fine, have at it. But that’s where you leave it. Anything beyond that is doing actual, real harm to living beings, and even going by your own fucked up beliefs, that’s supposed to be the bailiwick of that ‘god’ of yours, so you let it fight its own battles. I’ll wait.
“They’re claiming that every Democrat in America must be demon-possessed, as they are, in order to be faithful to the views of their party,” he said. “If you don’t serve the devil, you can’t be a good Democrat. I’m paraphrasing, but that is what they are saying, isn’t it?”
Sigh. Why no, that’s not what they are saying. They simply said that women are actual human beings. Nothing about demon possession, nothing about serving the devil, who gets one hell of a bad rap, I might add. I realize that ‘god’ of yours has to have a villain, or else the whole system collapses, but wow, did that story arc ever go wrong. ‘God’ is the bad guy, and the villain doesn’t do much at all, except be a handy scapegoat. As always, I highly recommend Steve Well’s Drunk With Blood: God’s Killings in the Bible. There’s a fucktonne of killing, and most all of it, with a minor exception (the bet over Job), it’s all on El Shaddai.
Also, whoever is handling the Social Justice Warrior LGBTIA Liberal Agenda handbook or whatever, keep up! I keep missing memos, and now I find out I’m obligated to consort with demons? I have a busy schedule, y’know, I can’t fit this stuff in on the spur of the moment.
The full mess is at RWW, complete with video if you’re the glutton for punishment type.
Don’t worry. Your commentariat has you covered on that one.
*Phew* I just have so much to do, so that’s a relief.
This Klingenschmitt character doesn’t even seem to realise that this issue has been discussed by Christian theologians for thousands of years, and most of them haven’t come to the same conclusions he has. On Exodus 21:22, for instance, most medieval theologians agreed that it mattered whether the foetus had fully formed and been ensouled -- on their (Aristotelian) understanding of biology a foetus only became infused with a human soul when it had developed sufficient bodily faculties to make use of it, the so-called “quickening” when it was first felt to move. About 40 days in. In fact, from the thirteenth century to the late 19th century (save for one decade in the late 1500s), papal law defined the beginning of human life as this quickening point. Theologians generally believed that before this point the matter involved in the foetus was still a part of the mother, and would be resurrected as a part of her on the Day of Judgment, rather than as an independent being. The irony is that at the point when we were coming to a much better understanding of human in utero development the Catholics (and most other denominations) decided to stop following the best science of the day and just come up with their own completely unfounded ideas about ensoulment and foetal development.
Most Christians throughout history would have thought him dangerously wrong too. He doesn’t even speak for the religion as a whole.
Cartomancer:
No christian does. It’s one of the major fucking problems with christianity -- everyone gets to have their own ideas about it.
Are they any good as, you know, consorts?
Giliell:
No idea, never met one.
See, that’S why I am so terminally disappointed in the gay agenda and the trans agenda doesn’t look any better. There’s all these promises of orgies and complete decadence and boys being girls and girls being girls as well and everybody fucking and now there’s even demons but none of it ever seems to come true.
I know, it’s disappointing. All these years, no orgies. I’m certainly not going to hold my breath on having a dazzling, demonic consort.
Oh man, now I remember -- back in my Jesus Freak days, being told that you should always be kind to strangers, no matter what, because they might be an angel, and if you were an asshole, well, they wouldn’t like that. Never met an angel, either.
Angels are like demons in disguise?
But damn, talk about promises and not delivering. So many orgies missed. *sadface*
But that seems like another one of those lessons us unholy demon consorting atheists heed a lot more than your devout christians
Giliell:
Not only that, but us orgy seeking, demon consortin’ atheists do that for the right reasons. The christian lesson was “anyone could be an angel in disguise, so you don’t want to piss an angel off, and by extension, god.” And of course, if you’re nice to an angel, you’ll get a prize! I got the distinct idea that angels weren’t very nice.
Caine
Well, that whole Christian morality seems to be based on “don’t get into the cookie jar because god will see you” and not “don’t eat all the cookies ’cause they’re bad for you”, so that doesn’t surprise me at all.