Banner Rotate



Logo by Julian Spanos

Antitheistic. Long. Perplexing. Offensive. Whatever.

Warning: This blog does not cater to your whims. If you are offended, then I am not obliged to care. It ain't personal until otherwise stated.

Random Quotes

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Religious Rant: Anglican leaders "rule" against gay bishop

Today’s little nugget of hilarity: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_re_af/anglican_conferencehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_re_af/anglican_conference

Excellent piece of news today, as the Anglican leaders passed a ruling on ‘gay bishops’. It’s funny how this whole charade is titled and staged like a legitimate ruling, with a legitimate process of consideration and debate before the ruling is passed. Yes, like the dogmatic shmucks would consider even entertaining the idea of associating any form of homosexuality with their religion. We might as well be straight about things and title such stories: “Anglican remain true to their nature!”

“Oh, really? Wow! And here I thought that finally, after hundreds of years worth of ruling in favour of nothing, gay religious leadership would be the one subject matter would be the one thing above all things to get favourable treatment. *Sure.*” - Urgent sarcasm. I bet they just sat in a room for a few hours and whipped their own backs for being sick little sinners while indulging in homoerotic fantasies.

Seriously, this ain’t no ruling. They already had their fucking minds made up, and for me to believe that they actually gave any form of consideration to things outside the tunnel-vision of their doctrine--especially gay bishops--is a fucking joke. As a matter of fact, it’s made into such a sad fucking joke because we’re given this impression that Anglicans actually entertain ideas outside their faith; it makes me laugh to the point of lung-failure, right before being engulfed in the bile-ridden urge to kick these zealots and their media representatives, square in the fucking nuts. Sadly, it’s a laughable fallacy, and also old to the point that it isn't news! It isn't NEWS! And this kind of old, tired, and useless time-consuming horseshit, fucking pisses me off.

“Oh Kade, you fucker, you’re always pissed off!” - Common observation.

“Wrong! I’d be very happy if I could break the Ayatollah into pieces, and then use those pieces to beat the Pope into a pulp!!” - My common response.

I’m capable of having an experience where I’d rise out gleeful and least pissed about anything. It’s just that the general perception of the media and the world can sometimes get to me with their trivial coverage of issues that aren't relevant and really fit to be deemed as 'news'. The pretentious drama is annoying; this incessant beating about the bush can get old real fast. Like hearing shit about how the middle-east is trying to achieve peace, and how the Anglicans are ‘considering’ gay-related issues, when their decisions were already set in stone over a thousand years ago.

The linked/aforementioned article is a very glaring example of time-wasting drama within the mainstream media; they have nothing better to report on, so they make up this shit about Anglicans spend their time supposedly considering issues that in reality they'll never tolerate or accept. The Anglican leaders didn’t pass a ruling, they only reaffirmed their millennium-long intolerance for something that they’re just not prepared to accept, let alone even consider. The title implies that they thought this through, and that a sincere, honest case was made to consider, which is a fucking joke and an insult to our collective intelligence! This is my problem, because these monkeys are portrayed by the media as thoughtful beings, when they’re clearly the contrary! And why does the media do this? Oh, I don't know?! Maybe because they lack talent or the desire to find a fresh new scoop? Or perhaps they're in on it? Here's a real question: Who the fuck cares?! Because it's their job to provide us with real news! If I wanted bad jokes, I'll read the comic section! Now where's my fucking news?!

Besides, was it just me, or did I detect a hint of zealotry and threats?

“Anglican traditionalists believe gay relationships violate Scripture and they have demanded that the U.S. church adhere to that teaching or face discipline.” - Excerpt from article.

Discipline. . . Oh, fucking hell! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Man! BAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If I was to ignore the nouns in that statement, I’d swear it sounded exactly like something one would hear from an Islam-o-fascist/fundamentalist. . . or some sick twisted paraphiliac with an even sicker religious kink.

“You’ve been a bad, bad little believer. Time for a harsh spanking. Time. For. Discipline.”

So, what will the Anglican leaders do, exactly? Sign up Bush for a fuckin' Hell Mary? Hah! That would be one hell of a sight, and for once, I’d actually root for the Anglicans, because I think it would be a fitting irony to watch one group of zealots spank the political shill of another group of zealots known as the American Neo-Cons.

Fucking hell! Not a single day goes by without something stupid coming up. Let’s just finish this drama and accept that the Anglicans won’t accept anything, okay? Let’s accept their inability to accept. I don’t wanna’ hear news about how they rule against this or against that. Fact remains that they always rule against, because hardly anything in the modern world confers with their outdated traditions. So why must all of us hear about how they can’t rule in favour of anything? We get it! Just like we got the previous stories - they can’t rule in favour of anything, just put one big banner on top of every news site, informing readers that the Anglican leaders rule against everything related to modern times, and then shut the fuck up.

Stupid zealots!

Later,
Kade

No comments: