Tuesday, May 29, 2012


Meet the Flukes!

By F. H. Buckley from the May 2012 issue of The American Spectator

Too many Americans today are "born without a skin." There’s a uniquely American ritual that has so far escaped the attention of cultural anthropologists. A group of people huddle, near a water cooler perhaps. One of them lowers his head, looks nervously from side to side, and then begins to speak softly, so that no one else might hear.

You’ve caught him in the act of perpetrating a joke.

This isn’t exactly the golden age of humor, as Rush Limbaugh discovered. For which our morality police will breathe a sigh of relief. They don’t have to worry about an edgy Saturday Night Live (“Jane, you ignorant slut!”) or National Lampoon. In fact, they don’t much have to worry about laughter at all, since there isn’t a lot of it. Laughter is dangerous, you see, because in every joke there’s a butt, someone at whom we laugh. Otherwise, it’s not funny.

That’s precisely the problem, however. Our laughter tells the butt that he’s a fool, a chump, a hypocrite. In short, he’s ridiculous. That’s a useful message, since our laughter tells the butt to shape up. Poor sap, he should thank us. Not that that’s likely, since there’s nothing more humiliating than ridicule.

That explains the death of laughter, since it collides with its arch-foe, the modern duty of respect. We used to think that social justice was all about economic needs, but now we’ve got a stronger safety net and it’s about banning expressions of disrespect. Gay marriage, the “war on women.” It’s all about feelings.

By the way, have you ever noticed that the modern definition of “social” is “not”? Social science is not science. Social work is not work. Social justice is not justice.

Forgive me, but I’m rather short on socially approved feelings these days. I don’t like being told that conservative views “disrespect” the whiners, and mostly I’m simply not interested in their complaints. I’m the last person I know who supports “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” You’re in a wonderful relationship? Fine. I just don’t want to know about it. It may well be the most faaabulous thing in your life at the moment, the only thing you want to talk about, but at best you’ve committed the unpardonable sin of becoming a bore. At worst, you’re passive-aggressive, and are churlishly claiming a right to my expression of respect. Either way, I’m defriending you.

Too many Americans today are, like Jefferson’s cousin, John Randolph of Roanoke, “born without a skin.” Every snub is magnified a hundredfold, and burns like fire on their souls. The easy grace that permits the strong man to laugh off a jest has been replaced by a touchiness that feels a slight from ten feet away. The difference is that, unlike Randolph, we’ve replaced the duel with the petition: “We, the undersigned, are outraged that…”

We, the undersigned, are pretty much outraged all the time, in case you haven’t noticed. Which is another reason for the death of laughter. So little time, so much to hate. In George Orwell’s 1984, every citizen was required to participate in a daily two minute hate-in. They were shown a film of Enemies of the People and required to express their hatred for 120 seconds. They got off easy. If MSNBC had only two minutes to get the hate in, they’d have nothing much left to broadcast for the remainder of their time.

Which brings us back to Limbaugh. In case you’ve been living on Mars, Rush said a Bad Word on February 29, and there’s been Hell to pay ever since. A lady called Sandra Fluke (rhymes with…oh, never mind) complained before an agitprop Democratic committee about Georgetown Law School’s policy of not providing insurance coverage for contraceptive pills. She said that a prescription cost $1,000 a year. Actually, it’s closer to $100, and Rush wondered what the extra money was all about. And so he used That Word, causing 300 million hearts to go all-aflutter.

Georgetown is a Jesuit university, and from this some might have concluded that it was a Catholic institution. If so, one might have wondered what Ms. Fluke expected when she got there. What she expected, she said, was that Georgetown would live up to the Jesuit creed, as enlightened people understand it, and Georgetown seemed eager to oblige her. The university’s president, John DeGioia, hastened to condemn Limbaugh for the disrespect he had displayed to a Georgetown student.

One reads that her parents are proud of her. That’s not surprising. After all, they were responding to President Obama’s demands, for he had telephoned their daughter to say that her parents ought to be proud of her. How their hearts must swell at the fame and respect she has brought to the name Fluke, which will live forevermore as a symbol of…something or other.

The entire episode was shame-making, but not because of some fictitious war on women. Rather, it revealed the essential triviality of modern politics. The economy is tanking, a fifth of Americans are out of work, the public debt load is wholly unsustainable, and what we want to know is whether Obama will come out publicly in favor of gay marriage. The Iranians are about to get the bomb, the Arab spring has turned to winter, we’re embroiled in an Afghani quagmire, but the real question is whether Rush’s advertisers will dump him.

So far they’re hanging in, for the most part, because Rush still commands what appears to be the largest audience in American radio. His listeners like his politics, of course, but that’s not the only story. Rush is also a humorist of a particularly American type, the teller of tall tales, the man behind the golden microphone, the orator who invites you to laugh with him at his exaggerations. He also offers an astute analysis of American politics, but sensible policy advice doesn’t make for an audience said to be of 20 million people a week. He is, above all, an entertainer, and entertainers sometimes tell bad jokes, especially if asked to perform for upward of 600 hours a year, for more than 20 years.

That’s not good enough for people on the left, and it’s also not good enough for the many people on the right who joined in the opportunistic show of hypocritical outrage. The latter are an interesting group. Some are prigs, of course, who are shocked, just shocked, when Foster Friess tells a joke about aspirin pills as a form of birth control. Others are what the French call vendus, the sell-outs who owe their celebrity solely to their willingness to dump on their colleagues on the right. For the banal Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, the Fluke episode was a godsend, since it permitted her to move on from the awfulness of Sarah Palin, volume CXI. Am I the only one who misses CNN’s Parker-Spitzer? She was Little Nell, and like Oscar Wilde one had to have a heart of stone not to giggle at her stunned befuddlement, a vapid grin fixed on her immobile face, when teamed up with motormouth Eliot Spitzer. (But then who could have handled Spitzer? Oh yes, Sarah Palin.)

Finally, there’s a third group: the conservative who yearns for left-wing approbation. I am so reasonable, my facts so irrefutable, my conclusions so logical. How can you deny me respect, Keith Olbermann? That’s an intellectual failing, of course, one of high silliness, but it’s also a moral failing. It’s an example of the narcissism at the heart of the ethic of respect.

You know what one should do with all such people? Laugh at them.

About the Author F. H. Buckley is Foundation Professor at the George Mason University School of Law.

(Blog owners note: Any comments that do no more than attack the writer, Rush Limbaugh, me or any of my other commenters will be deleted. If you want to refute, refute with facts, linear logic or opinion about the substance of the post. Period.)


Ducky's here said...

I don't understand how using a national radio program to assault a woman by calling her a slut is a joke.

Right wing humor is often an incongruity but the humor of the Limbaugh incident is pretty thin.

A former reader and commentor said...

(Commenter’s note:) I'm going to expand or you comment made on the home page.
I’ve had enough!!! I’ve had enough of the trio of Liberal idiots who have found a place to ridicule us republicans on a regular basis.

My political interests take me to a lot of blogs during the course of the day, many of them hosted by find republican bloggers such as you.. From time to time, I comment on the fine work you folks do. Now don’y take me wrong, I enjoy a debate with someone with opposing views as long as it is civil and respectful of each others opinions. But in this case it is NOT!
Thanks for sharing your views, in the past.
However, I won’t be sharing the love on your blog until you decide to get rid of those idiot’s who disrupt the flow of discussion by their nasty ness and rude insults. And when your blog stops getting traffic and/or comments, or you’ll see that I am correct. When many of those who read it, get as fed up with it as I am and stop visiting you may change your mind and BAN these interlopers and intrudes. In a sense, I am boycotting your blog. If these people really wanted to discuss political issues they would do so on liberal/progressive blogs, heaven know there are plenty of them out there. But in contrast, I see them around all the republican blogs causing the same disruption.
Confrontation, in itself is not all bad. However, if they’re consistently looking to “STIR THE POT” they get tagged as a negative, argumentative, unpleasant, and/or disruptive.. Sooner or later no one will want to visit that blog. Hatred should not be rewarded, or condoned..I'm guessing you can't change a liberals spots.
I urge anyone who feels as I do to do the same.

Anonymous said...

If you called me a slut, on national, state or local radio, I would laugh - and laugh at you.
If you 'thought' I was a slut, in the privacy of your own cranium, believe that I would laugh - if I had that proverbial penny and wished to spend it wastefully to discover your thoughts.

'Cause words like that only come from the weak and fearful and I find weaklings humourous. I'm not a nice person that way.

Joe said...

Ducky: "I don't understand how using a national radio program to assault a woman by calling her a slut is a joke."

Congratulations! You lived up to my expectations. I didn't expect you to understand.

However, whether or not it was a joke misses the point of the post.

Is your intellect capable of discerning what the point of the post is?

Yes or no.

Anonymous said...

I would not laugh at Mr. Limbaugh. He is an exceptionally gifted goad and knows EXACTLY what he is doing. And he, like other agents provocateurs of his ilk, serve an important role in keeping the people engrossed in trivialities. TMZ can't carry the entire burden ya know!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I didn't think Rush was making a joke. It sounded to me like he was calling a "spade" a "spade." Fluke complained about having to pay for birth control, and Rush made a point about her sexual promiscuity. In the old days EVERYONE called a promiscuous woman a "slut." But now it is politically-incorrect.

Joe said...

GEC: Personally, I think she is probably sexually very active and therefore interested in free birth control.

To call her a slut would require that the word "slut" have its original meaning of one who is very sexually active outside of marriage.

Liberals, however, define terms and situations any way they want to.

Words "marriage," "slut" "buffalo"
and others mean what they want them to mean, and if they don't, they'll make them mean what they want them to mean.

Xavier Onassis said...

Glenn E. Chatfield - So a woman who takes birth control is sexually promiscuous and a slut?

What century do you actually live in?

Do you even know how birth control pills work?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Don't be a pinhead. Of course I know how the pills work.

It was plain she wants them for sexual activity without pregnancy. She isn't married. Sex outside of marriage is promiscuous, hence that makes one practicing same a slut.

Xavier Onassis said...

GEC - Hmm, now that's interesting you see because my single, 18 year old daughter takes birth control pills which I pay for and which are covered under my insurance plan.

Are you calling my daughter a promiscuous slut?

Do you really think you are qualified to pass such a judgement about someone you don't know?

I'm flat broke and deep in debt. said...

Xavier Onassis said...

GEC - Hmm, now that's interesting you see because my single, 18 year old daughter takes birth control pills which I pay for and which are covered under my insurance plan.
Are you calling my daughter a promiscuous slut?

I don't know your 18 year old daughter . But As they say, If the shoe fits!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Are you really that obtuse? Did anyone ever say that all who take B.C. are promiscuous? The pills can be used for other conditions, as everyone has acknowledge, but that isn't what FLUKE was talking about. Have you ever heard the word "CONTEXT"?

Anonymous said...

Joe said,

".....Liberals, however, define terms and situations any way they want to....."

Most people do this Joe.

Contrary to what Mr. Shkespeare would have us believe: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet.", There is a tremendous amount in a name.

This whole mess started when Carl Djerassi named his invention the "Oral Contraceptive Pill" which evolved into the "Birth Control Pill" - what a moron!
Had the idiot named it instead the "Hormonal Menses Modulation Pill" and had it dispensed for free: "Get Your Free HMMP", The world would indeed be a friendlier place now.

Xavier Onassis said...

GEC - Well, let me be clear. My 18 year old daughter is taking birth control pills to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

So let me ask you again. Are you calling my daughter a promiscuous slut?

Joe said...

XO: "Are you calling my daughter a promiscuous slut?

Do you really think you are qualified to pass such a judgement about someone you don't know?"

Well, YOU are the one who told us she uses birth control pills.

If she uses them for those "other" reasons, then she is not a slut.

If she uses them to avoid pregnancy because she practices sex outside of marriage, then, yes, she is a slut.

That's what "slut" means, unless you, being a liberal, determine that it doesn't mean that.

So in your mind, what does "slut" mean? How does one become one?

I am very qualified to pass such a judgement, based on the definition of "slut."

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O. If your daughter is unmarried and having sex, then she is fornicating. Which comes under the definition of promiscuity. A fornicating woman is also known as a whore or slut.

Why they don't call fornicating men the same thing is beyond my comprehension. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Joe said...

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Slut: a promiscuous woman...

Slut or slattern is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous.

Anonymous said...


Sex outside of marriage only became a concern when the Church decided to control marriage in the 14th century. Prior to that, the Church had nowt to do with marriage and morality and only the titled or landed gentry worried about 'paternity' issues. Sex before, during or after marriage was irrelevant in connotations of 'morality'.
Prior to the 14th century, no one, by your definition of the word 'slut', would qualify as one.

That's why I like to think of myself as an old-fashioned kind of gal! Really old-fashioned.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - Merriam-Webster defines "slut" as 1: chiefly British: a slovenly woman 2a: a promiscuous woman; especially: PROSTITUTE B: a saucy girl: MINX

It says nothing at all about having sex outside of marriage. You have made up a definition of the word that does not exist and are applying that bogus definition to people you don't know.

Doesn't the Bible have something to say about that sort of behavior?

Erin said...

Can you tell me where I can get a birth control prescription that treats my specific symptoms for $8.34 a month? My crazy doctor says I need the kind that costs $89 a month. He must be just one of those liberal Utah left-wing gynecologists you hear so much about.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe & GEC - Merriam Webster defines promisuous thusly: 1: Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners: 2: Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate 3: Casual; random 4 Consisting of diverese, unrelated parts or individuals; confused

Again, not one word about marriage. My daughter has dated the same boy since she was 16. He's an honor student and a competitive swimmer.

I hardly think the exclusive, committed relationshipin which they are engaged fits any of the definitions of the words that you sling about so casually as if you knew what they actually mean.

Anonymous said...

Erin said,

".....He must be just one of those liberal Utah left-wing gynecologists you hear so much about....."

Nyuck nyuck!

Ducky's here said...

I understand the post quite well, Joe.

A women objecting to being assaulted on a national (albeit shrinking every day) talk show for three days has a thin skin.

This after you threatened to ban me for much more mild offenses.

It's pretty clear who has the thin skin, Joe.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Thanks for revisionist history. The Bible predates the 14th century, and the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers predate the 14th century, and all talk about sex outside of marriage being fornication.

The Bible is the origin of marriage.

X.O. The Bible has a lot to say about sex outside of marriage - FORNICATION!!!!

So if your daughter is fornicating with him, why don't they get married? Oh, as long as he gets the milk, why should he buy the cow!

Anonymous said...

".....The Bible is the origin of marriage....."

I'm sure Julius Caesar, and many others before and of his era, would disagree. Does this mean the folks who are not christian cannot be married?

Revisionist or not, the church did not concern itself with marriage until the 14th century. I read it somewhere, honest.

Xavier Onassis said...

GEC - "The Bible is the origin of marriage." Oh really? The earlist version of what you would recognize as a "bible" came about as the result of the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. So before that, there was no such thing as marriage? Everyone before that were all just promiscuous sluts then?

By the way, you say FORNICATION like it's a bad thing. You should try it sometime.

Anonymous said...

"....Oh, as long as he gets the milk, why should he buy the cow!...."

Have you ever owned a cow? - They're messy beasts hardly worth the trouble.

Where I live one cannot 'own' a cow - it's forbidden. But if a cow were to, on its own volition, take up residence in your pasture, you can keep it. You have to let it go if it wants to though.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Since the Christians followed the Jews in their ideas of marriage, and the Jews had the O.T. teachings for close to 4000 years BC, I'd say the Caesars were late-comers.

Marriage was before the Jews or Christians. God defined marriage at the beginning of creation. People don't need to be of any religious belief to be married. But marriage has always been defined as the union of members of opposite sex.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Now, I really don't think you are that ignorant. The O.T. was collected as one canonized unit long before Christ was born. The N.T. as individual books was completed by the end of the first century. "Bible" really just means "book" or collection of books. Our Bible was actually collection long before Hippo. But then, you'd have to study history yourself rather than take talking points from atheist and skeptics.

Ducky's here said...

The bible is the origin of marriage?

Why does marriage exist in non christian countries, Chatsworth?

The Chinese may say it comes from Confucian thought but please try to extricate yourself from this.

Did marriage exist in Greek and Roman culture? Let us know.

When you finish you can tell us why the Abrahamic religions are so gung-ho about controlling peoples sexuality.

But watch out. Explain it delicately because we leftists have thin skins. Some of us get all cranky when a bunch of whitened sepulchers call their daughter a slut and expect us to laugh.

Joe said...

GEC: When it comes to the Bible, XO has absolutely no knowledge at all. He thinks he does, though.

Anonymous said...

The Jews have no problem with sex out-of-wedlock. And the O.T. seems to have no problem with it either.

".....the union of members of opposite sex...."

My friend has Swyer Syndrome. Which gender might my friend marry?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You are really stupid. Yes, STUPID. That is the only reason you’d keep calling me names.

Actually, I misspoke. The BIBLE is not the origin of marriage - it RECORDS the origin of marriage. God is the origin of marriage, and God existed first and created everything. Since everyone on earth today descended from Adam and Eve (and more specifically Noah and his wife), everyone knows about God - but most refuse to acknowledge him because then they’d have to be accountable to someone for their sin.

No one is “about controlling peoples sexually.” God gave sex as a way to procreate within the family unit. It is God who gave it controls. It is man who has decided to make it just a form of recreation, and recreation with everything and anything!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Religious, orthodox Jews do indeed have the same problem with sex out of wedlock as do Christians. Just because someone is a Jew, that doesn’t mean they follow the Bible any more than do many who claim to be Christian. God made the rules.

Your friend (if you truly have one as described rather than using an atheist’s talking point) is a genetic defect. And from what I understand, these individuals are more female than male and are usually raised that way.

Craig said...

I think this is great. Keep bringing up Sandra Fluke and Rush. I'm sure that trying to convince those who think Rush's 3 day tirade (it wasn't about one word) was crass, ignorant bullying are thin skinned and humorless is a winner. This column should be seen by as many eyeballs as possible. I'm sure Mittens and the GOP want to be talking about this right up to election day. This and Rev. Wright and Obama's birth certificate.

Speaking of Mittens, Romneycare has the same mandates for preventative care (inc. birth control) provided by Catholic hospitals and universities. Where were the Bishops then?

He is, above all, an entertainer,

Really. How many DNC chairmen, Dem. Congresspeople, governors or candidates have had to offer groveling apologies to Olbermann, Mahar or Ed Schultz?

Laughter is dangerous, you see, because in every joke there’s a butt, someone at whom we laugh.

Here's the thing about humor. It's funny when you're punching up or sideways. Unless you're a sociopath, it's usually not funny punching down. Making fun of celebrities or politicians can be funny. Making fun of a celebrity's Parkinson's, you're a jerk. A thrice married, multimillionaire with a golden megaphone and 20M listeners making "jokes" about college student, who didn't talk about her own use of contraception, being a slut and "having so much sex" for 3 days is being a jerk. But, hey, keep trying to convince me and the vast majority of Americans, especially women, that we're humorless.

I’m the last person I know who supports “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” You’re in a wonderful relationship? Fine. I just don’t want to know about it. It may well be the most faaabulous thing in your life at the moment, the only thing you want to talk about, but at best you’ve committed the unpardonable sin of becoming a bore. At worst, you’re passive-aggressive, and are churlishly claiming a right to my expression of respect.

I don't think anyone gives a damn about getting this guys respect. If this guy was in the service he could have talked about his wife or girlfriend all he wanted, whether anyone wanted to hear it or not. The difference is, he couldn't have been discharged for it.

Anonymous said...

".....and more specifically Noah and his wife...."

Noah had daughters. These daughters had husbands(though some say one was in a same-sex marriage) - don't forget these guys!

I've no doubt you have read the bible. In fact, you may even have memorised it, you know, like those boys do in the Madrasses, but you have not read the 'word of god'. To do this requires fluency in ancient Greek, or at least Latin, so you can access the original versions. The modern-day bible - in English - bears little resemblance to the real word of god.
Check out any web-site that allows one to view multiple translations of original Greek lines across different 'translations' into English. Eye-opening it is.

Ducky's here said...

Chatsworth Osborne Jr. --- all cultures have their creation myths. Their institutions developed with no knowledge whatsoever of the Christian bible.

The O.T. was the text of a very,very minor Canaanite tribe. Hardly what you describe.

But back to it. Why shouldn't XO object to your calling G.T.O. (who seems a very responsible person) a slut? Does that constitute a thin skin or just an objection to your skewed view of human sexuality?

Anonymous said...

"....God made the rules....."

It did indeed. And until you can read ancient Greek, you'll have no idea what they are. You'll have to trust others, who have lied to you!
And Jews do not follow the bible, they have their own book. The OT is a flawed re-writing of that book - called the Septuagint I think.

Anonymous said...

I keep meaning to ask you Joe:

How's your hip?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky the Ass,
There is one real God, and it is the one described in the Bible and followed by Jews and Christians for thousands of years. it is not a myth. But you will know that in the end, when it will be too late for you.

Revisionist atheist history claims Jews were Canaanite - so you just revealed your source. They were not Canaanite, but you are too stupid to know that because you only read stuff from atheists, skeptics and liberals. Every hear of a library? Or the internet? You should do some serious research and quit showing your abject stupidity and ignorance.

Ducky's here said...

Whoa, some one is pretty thin skinned.

Hear the voices Chats? Those are your cornermen yelling, "Stay down."

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Um, are not Noah’s daughters descended from Noah and his wife? So if I said everyone descended from Noah and his wife, doesn’t than mean by default any children of theirs?

The Word of God is not in ANY written document. The Word of God is what men wrote down as the Spirit directed them, and it ended up in their language - Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. What we have are good English translations of the many manuscripts in these and other languages into which the originals were translated. I have about 30 different English versions in my personal library and use all of them for study. There are good translations and poor translations, but those who study such matters know this. And if you study a formal translation you do indeed have accurate renderings of the original languages.

Your ignorance of textual translations and textual criticism, let alone history and origin of the texts, is astounding. The O.T. is NOT from the Septuagint. It is translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic. The Septuagint is just a Greek translation. You really need to quit copying atheist talking points.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You are a cyber bully. You like to call names and make fun of people on the 'net because you are anonymous. You are a coward as is every bully. And childish to boot.

Anonymous said...

"....There is one real God, and it is the one described in the Bible and followed by Jews and Christians for thousands of years....."

The Muslims and Zoroastrians also follow that one real god - don't forget them.

"....when it will be too late for you....."

It is NEVER too late, jesus promised this.

Ducky's here said...

Craig, XO --- any chance we can all pitch in and get Joe and Glenn tickets to a John Stewart show?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

No, neither the Muslims nor anyone else follow the true God described in the Bible. Anyone studying religious beliefs could tell you that.

Jesus said it is too late if you die in your sins. If you do not accept Christ as savior prior to death, that's all she wrote. Heb. 9:27

Anonymous said...

"....You really need to quit copying atheist talking points....."

I learned that stuff from a catholic priest - but then that says it all right?
I am learning as I go here. And I thank Joe for the opportunity to do so here.
Still, if you don't read ancient Greek, you have never read the word of god, at least the NT bits.

I am not an atheist. I am a polytheist if I am a theist at all, but I am not an atheist.

Anonymous said...

Islam and Judaism both trace back to Abraham.
Allah and Yaweh are the same being.

Xavier Onassis said...

Ducky - I think a ticket to the nearest mental health facility might be more useful.

Anonymous said...

It is Jon Stewart I think.

And he is kinda, like you know, not one of us.
I mean, he's really short!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

If a Catholic priest told you that, then he even disagreed with the Catholic Church! And Catholics may or may not be Christian - most aren’t. They are good Catholics but have no clue about the gospel.

So, God spoke Greek then?

Polytheism is even more illogical than atheism.

No, Islam does NOT trace back to Abraham. Some Arabic tribes do trace back to Abraham, but the religion does not. A study of Islam shows it to be just another false belief system worshiping another God.

Allah is an Arabic word for god, but Allah as described by Islam is not the God of the Bible. The description is much different.

Ducky's here said...

And Catholics may or may not be Christian - most aren’t. They are good Catholics but have no clue about the gospel.

I also love Renaissance religious art, Chatwsorth. Does that make me an idol worshiper?

What if the Buddha was correct, Chatsie?

Anonymous said...

Your god spoke to folks who themselves read and wrote Ancient Greek. Your god could have spoken Na'vi to them for all I know.

You are probably correct about Arabic tribes and Islam, I'll need to further research it.

Still, ya gotta learn Ancient Greek. Joe knows his Greek as do all true christians.

Xavier Onassis said...

GEC - "...but Allah as described by Islam is not the God of the Bible. The description is much different.". Using that criteria, one could make a rock solid case that God of the Old Testament is not the God of the New Testament. Old Testament Yaweh has a lot more in common with Allah than Jesus.

Anonymous said...

Bojangles said,

".....I also love Renaissance religious art, Chatwsorth. Does that make me an idol worshiper?....."

Well I don't know about it making you an idol worshipper, but if your tastes include Hieronymus Bosch, it sure makes you weird.
That dude was sure smokin' something.

Lisa said...

Sandra Fluke is no kid and a known activist. I am sure she has faced many obstacles due to her activism.
She's no innocent little girl by any means.
But neither is that right wing slut Laura Ingram or that stupid c--- Sarah Palin.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

So in your scenario God only talked to those who knew Greek. So where do you find this stuff? Most true Christians have no knowledge of Greek at all, since God never intended his word to not be translated. And, as previously noted, you then leave out the Hebrew and Aramaic (small portions) of the O.T. I have been trying to learn Greek and do know the alphabet, but I rely on my parallel Bibles, lexicons, etc.

If you are truly seeking information about the Bible and Christian faith, feel free to e-mail me with any questions. I’ve been doing this apologetics stuff for 40 years.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Again you play the atheist talking points while not really studying for yourself. The God of the O.T. and the God of the N.T. have the exact same identity.

Xavier Onassis said...

GEC - No they don't! LOL! O.T. God was all about war and vengeful wrath and blind sacrifice and conquest and obedience. N.T. God was all about love and generosity and charity and salvation. Polar opposites.

Anonymous said...

".....So in your scenario God only talked to those who knew Greek......"

That is not what I said. The word of god, NT word that is, was originally written in ancient Greek because those who wrote it down used ancient Greek. This god spoke to all I'm sure, it is just that only a few listeners bothered to write it down - and they wrote it down in ancient Greek 'cause that was what they spoke.

Thank you for your offer of instruction - I might actually take you up on it. Currently I am translating any and all fragments of biblical writings, in Greek script, I can find. Mostly facsimiles of papyrus fragments - like the Dead Sea Scrolls stuff - I find on the Internet or in Scholarly Journals. I do this not to learn christianity so much as to practise my ancient Greek skills. If a spirituality were to come of it, well that would be icing on the cake - maybe. I say maybe because I do not find christians to be particularly worthy of emulating - Joe being an exception.
It is not bad being a pagan. We have a moral framework and we hurt no one. At the end, I figure if there is a divinity, it will understand and judge according to how well I lived my life - much like all the people in the world who were born, lived and died BEFORE the historically unattested jesus was born were judged. I reckon a few of them must have made it to the afterlife to be with jesus.

Joe said...

XO: "Old Testament Yaweh has a lot more in common with Allah than Jesus."

Uhh...The Old Testament Yaweh and Jesus are one in the same.

God the Father is not the Son and He is not the Holy Spirit, but He is God. God the Son is not the Father and He is not the Holy Spirit, but He is God. God the Holy Spirit is not the Father and He is not the Son, but He is God.

And He is only one.

And He is the only One.

Jesus, Himself, said, "I and the Father are One."

That is a concept that you cannot possibly absorb unless and until you enter a relationship with God through faith in, and only in, the finished work of Christ at the cross of Calvary as revealed to you by the Holy Spirit.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Still posting atheist talking points. Sorry, but if you actually ever READ the Bible you would see both testaments talk about a God of Love and a God of Justice.

Joe said...

ALTC: " I am translating any and all fragments of biblical writings, in Greek script, I can find. Mostly facsimiles of papyrus fragments - like the Dead Sea Scrolls stuff."

Uh...You're going to have trouble translating some of them with your expertise in Greek. They are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, mostly on parchment, but with some written on papyrus.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You are still ignoring the O.T. languages. The point is, that it doesn’t matter what language the original authors wrote their books in, what matters is if they can be accurately translated. The Word of God is not the actual words on paper. No one in the history of Christianity would ever claim that God’s Word can only be found in the Greek. That is just plain illogical. (Or cultish - like the King James Only people who say only in that version will you find God’s true word).

Christians may or may not be worthy of emulating; we are still sinners. Some are indeed a disgrace to the faith. But we are not called to emulate other Christians - we are called to emulate Christ.

I believe you do have a moral framework, as does everyone. The issue is what moral framework is the truth. And that truth is found only in the Bible

Xavier Onassis said...

GEC - Oh, I've read the Bible many, many times. Studied it quite intensively, actually. I even did a stint as an itinerant preacher leading the lost to Christ. My home was my backpack and I subsisted on what the Lord provided by way of donations and charity.

Yes, I know the Bible very well. And I know Christians very well too. It was precisely this deep knowledge that drove me to atheism.

After all, how can one say they don't believe in something unless they know what it is that they don't believe?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I find your story hard to believe. But then again, you could have read the Bible a million times through without ever understanding it.

You could not have ever been a Christian, which is why you failed as a preacher; you have to believe what you preach.

But to become an atheist only proves you didn't understand what you read and don't really know the Bible. You've proven that over and over on this site.

Anonymous said...


"Like the Dead Sea Scrolls" - meaning old like them - not the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves.
I know many old testament writings are in Aramaic and Hebrew - like the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm concerned with NT writings, so far, and only the ones in Greek. I'll learn Hebrew and Aramaic later in life.

"....what matters is if they can be accurately translated...."

Can they?
The ancient Greek in the bible uses the 'middle voice'. This is a verb aspect that is not present in English. I can translate many lines form the papyri into Spanish retaining a specific meaning, but I cannot get them into English while keeping that same meaning. And it is not because I suck at translation - no one can do it! Middle voice ancient Greek cannot be translated 'perfectly' into English. This really bugs me.

".....Some are indeed a disgrace to the faith...."

Like that weird naked Floridian with his curious roadside culinary proclivities?
We pagans would have at least cooked him first.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Translators are well aware of “middle voice” and other translational difficulties. And it can all be translated to come out accurately. There are times when it can’t be translated word for word, but definitely thought-for-thought.

Who said the Floridian was Christian?

Xavier Onassis said...

GEC - Believe, don't believe, it's of no consequence to me. But I can assure you I was raised in a good Christian home and attended the Methodist church with my family. My mother sand in the church choir and I even served as an altar boy. No, I was not abused. Rev. Hannah was a king old gent. I took my Methodist catechism classes and studied hard. I was baptized into the Methodist church. But that's just how I was raised. It was actually years after that that I was born again and immersed myself in the faith. Armed with my trusty Schofield Reference Bible and a large supply of Christian Tracts I hitchiked through Missouri and Kansas preaching on street corners. I was a True Believer.

Until my rational mind took over and I realized it was all a lot of supersticious nonsense and none of it was real.

I'm much happier living in reality.

Anonymous said...

There are times when it can’t be translated word for word, but definitely thought-for-thought.

Thought for thought?
I am not so sure. It takes a lot of faith to trust the translators - I just can't do that.

For instance, and this is not Greek either, check out the various 'translations' of what Onan did when forced to lay with his brother's wife. Was there a thought for thought translation when different versions of the OT say he did different things? What he actually did differs from translation to translation. I understand that the result was the same, but how he achieved the result differs. How can I trust any translation to be accurate unless I do it myself. A pagan translating the bible would be better at getting to the real meaning because a christian already thinks he/she knows what is supposed to be there and his/her translations are tainted accordingly.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

True believers never leave the Christian faith.

As previously stated, your statements and claims demonstrate you don't understand the Bible, which is why you denounced it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Translators for good translations never work solo. They combine the minds of excellent scholars.

I have no idea what you mean by Onan; demonstrate what you mean by different translations differing on meaning, please.

It might be best to take this off this line, since it has long since left the subject. jude3.gctwm@yahoo.com

Xavier Onassis said...

GEC - None of what you just said is true. True Christiand lose their faith and leave Christianity behind all the time.

Whether you believe me is completely meaningless to me. It's my life, I lived it, I know what happened and you don't.

Anonymous said...

Onan 'cast his seed to the ground' say most translations. Was it through masturbation or coitus interruptus? Both show up in translations. What really happened?

Many scholars worked together to translate John 1:1 - 'The Word' verse. One group included the indefinite article 'a' to modify the last 'god'.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God."

Do I trust these scholars?
I think not!
What if this English language bible was the only translation to which I had access? I'd be going door-todoor with Watchtower and Awake now. Being able to translate the original Greek myself would show me the incorrect addition of the 'a'. By adding the 'a' precisely in the position they did, a new religion was created.
I do not trust other translators.

Ducky's here said...

Rather, it revealed the essential triviality of modern politics. The economy is tanking, a fifth of Americans are out of work, the public debt load is wholly unsustainable, and what we want to know is whether Obama will come out publicly in favor of gay marriage. The Iranians are about to get the bomb, the Arab spring has turned to winter, we’re embroiled in an Afghani quagmire, but the real question is ....
... Obama's birth certificate.

Hope Mittens and Trump have a good fund raiser

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


According the Scripture, no true Christian will leave the faith. For you to claim otherwise is to deceive yourself and to justify why you are an atheist.

TheGreatGatsby said...

Ducky, Have you considered euthanasia?

TheGreatGatsby said...

And Ducky, would you support making Obama King Of America?
I would love to hear if you and all you other liberals would support Obama becoming king and your rationale.

Conservatives and Independents please hold your tongues. No need to go off on any diatribes. Let the libs weigh in on this one first.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

There is nothing about masturbation with Onan. Roman Catholics, and others, will use that passage to denounce masturbation and coitus interruptus, but c.i. was what it was. It says he went into her and then spilled his seed.

No one has ever denied the correct translation of John 1:1 except the Jehovahs Witnesses, which are a cult. “the Word was God” has been translated that way from the beginning of English translations. Surely if that wasn’t correct someone would have noticed after 600 years. Only cults add “a” to it.

So you will trust yourself to do the translations? Fine, if you are very, very well versed in the language, which I doubt will happen in the real near future, which means you will be just as fallible as any one else. These translations have teams of scholars double- and triple-checking each others’ works to get as accurate as possible, and yet you decide they can’t be trusted?

Well, when we discuss Scripture, just be sure to point out our incorrect translations.

Xavier Onassis said...

GEC - " According the Scripture, no true Christian will leave the faith.". If that's what the scripture says then the scripture is wrong because it has happened and continues to happen.

Ducky's here said...

Joe, does calling for my euthanization constitute an insult?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Quit whining. You insult me every time you call me something besides my real name, and you've never called me by my real name because you are a cyber bully and a coward.

Xavier Onassis said...

GEC - You called my daughter a promiscuous slut. You might want to quit whining about not being called by your proper name.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Calling a person by their described behavior - you know, like a murderer, a thief, etc, isn't the same as abusing someone by refusing to use their name. Besides, I didn't call your daughter anything. You described her behavior and I just stated what a person is who behaves in that manner.

Ducky is just a childish jerk.

Ducky's here said...

Chatsworth Osborne Jr. --- Is everything written in Leviticus still applicable to our contemporary life?

Xavier Onassis said...

GEC - "You described her behavior and I just stated what a person is who behaves in that manner."

OK. So I guess it's fair game for me to observe your behavior on this blog and state what a person is who behaves like you?

If I were to do that, which I won't, I would have to use some very uncharitable words indeed.

If I were to describe someone who exibited the sort of attitudes and viewpoints that you do, I might use words like...

Nah, not going to go there.

Isabella said...

Xavier Onassis your liberal tone and justification is part and parcel of the progressive way of thinking these days.

If you want to call what Rush said to that "SLUT" unjustified, let me say this.. Your 18 year old daughter is in no uncertain terms, a slut, and , a horny .young lady and I use the term "lady" loosely..

And of she is promiscuous with one guy then she most likely had sex with multiple partners..
If you really care about her, then you should advise her to find counseling.

Xavier Onassis said...

Quite the classy clientele you attract here Joe.

You must be so proud.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

XO, Don't you know that theres a term for your daughter? It's called nymphomania.

At her age she should be masturbating instead of partying and whoring herself out all over town.
But that's ok, character isn't all that it's built up to be..
But I will say one thing, she sure has a lucky boyfriend.
If you want to dispute facts, please go ahead, I'm always game for a good laugh.

And by the way, your the one with the daughter who is giving away the store and YOU dare to call others A Classless Clientele? LMAO...

Ducky's here said...

Joe, you let in the hoi polloi again.

Jarhead said...

Xavier Onassis said...
"Quite the classy clientele you attract here Joe."

It seems to me from reading this thread, that YOU opened the door, by bringing you daughter into the discussion! And now it annoys you?

Deal with it.

Xavier Onassis said...

Jarhead - I'm not annoyed I'm amused at how vile, petty, filled with hate and generally in-Christ-like all of these fine, upstanding Christian folk are. They continue to remind me why I'm an atheist.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I could answer that question, but won't because it was directed at someone else.

Jarhead said...

Xavier Onassis said...
"Jarhead - I'm not annoyed I'm amused at how vile, petty, filled with hate and generally in-Christ-like all of these fine, upstanding Christian folk are. They continue to remind me why I'm an atheist."

Well continue to have fun with that, and while your at it stop your whining and complaining about it, when people respond.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

OKAY, OKAY! I've got to side with X.O. on this one.

X.O. stated his daughter has been having sexual relations with her boyfriend since, if I recall, she was 16, and now she is 18. There is no evidence from any information on this string which says she has been with more than one man, and it is highly unfair to suggest otherwise.

While it is immoral from the Christian viewpoint for people to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage, I have known many people who were faithful to the one person and even later married. This may very well be the eventual case with X.O.'s daughter.

Does her sexual behavior fit the definition of "slut" as we've discussed here? YES. Does that mean she is whoring around with more than one guy? NO. Without evidence to the contrary, there are false accusations being made.

Even the charge of nymphomania is unwarranted. So how about toning down the assaults.

Anonymous said...

"the οἱ πολλοί"?

Are not all Yankees such?

"......Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

The Debonair Dudes World said...

Personally I think that anyone that says something like that about their own Daughter on a public forum is out of their friggen mind
personal sexual relations is not something to discuss on an open blog with anybody. But that's just my opinion... what Liberals do never ceases to surprise me.. We've even heard them admit to eating Dogs

Ducky's here said...

So as Joe posts a commentary that supports a rabies radio hate jock catching a little flack for using his show as a platform to insult a college student for the sin of using contraception we have the American Taliban in the person of Glenn coming out to defend him.

Then we have various hangers-on crawling out from under a rock to help the normals remember what mindless dangerous poltroons the fringe right has become. All the more dangerous that they spout their nonsense in the name of religion.

You have to keep on your toes. America has largely beaten back these ignorant zealots but they remind us that vigilance is essential.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

If you are going to accuse someone of something, perhaps you better define your terms. Just what do you mean by "American Taliban"? I am an American, but since the Taliban are a Muslim sect, you bear false witness - i.e. LIE - when you associate me with that organization.

novatiger said...

and you expected anything different from that doofus daffy duck?

Xavier Onassis said...

In closing (I feel like we all just came back from a really long road trip and are sick of each other's company), I was never offended or annoyed, nor did I whine or complain about the RIDICULOUSLY hostile comments from you good Christian folks.

I took issue with your completely made up definitions of the words you slung around. It underscored your ignorance.

I took issue with the depth of your so called "Christian Values" and how they could possibly be reconciled with the accusations and horrible, vile, hateful things you said about people you don't know.

Not saying you're gullible (which you totally are), but you don't even know if anything I said was actually true!

You redneck, right-wing, rubes are so chomping at the bit to spill liberal blood that all we have to do is toss a little chum in the water and you shed the thin veneer of your so called "Christian values" and reveal your true selves.

No wonder you think that humans are inherently evil and need divine intervention to supress your true nature. After all, that's exactly what you see when you look in the mirror.

You folks are great sport and you never fail to entertain. That's why I keep coming back.

My daughter and I laughed ourselves to death reading your absurd comments.

Thanks for playing along. Chumps!

Anonymous said...

And are going to give any value to what your daughter thinks?

Joe said...

XO: "RIDICULOUSLY hostile comments from you good Christian folks."

That is a whine.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - That's not a whine, it's an observation. But you have already demonstrated your lack of understanding about how words work. What with those pesky definitions and all.

Sidbirt said...

Oh, I get it now, you bring your daughter's Sex life into a public blog discussion and when us "good Christian folks" comment about it it's a big joke to you and your promiscuous daughter think it's a big joke!
Instead of giving your daughter some counseling, you bitch about us
into Maybe you should be teaching your daughter some morals instead of preaching to us..Maybe it's your " values" or lack of them that are all screwed up?

So go give your daughter a great big hug and tell her to go do whatever she has the urge to do.. In daughter's atheist mind she can be as promiscuous as she wants to be. Who the heck cares about morals... Certainly not us "Chumps with our Christian Values"!!

In MY Christian mind, I think that parents should be talking to their daughters about promiscuity, But what would a Christian Chump like me know?
It's the Chump atheist's like YOU who know it all

Welcome to atheism where teenagers get their rocks off and laugh at us Christian Chump with moral values!

Something wrong here? And silly me, I always thought that we were supposed to be an intelligent species.! But, whatever floats your boat.

And by the way I laughed myself to death after reading your absurd comments.

Sidbirt said...

That's right boys and girls, it's alright to call Rush Limbaugh all those dumb names like I've seen on those Progressive blogs where they constantly address him as Rush Limpballs. But don't dare to question us when we speak about our Christian Values and Morals, because it's you who are right and us Christian Chumps are laughable. It's us Conservatives who are intolerable

Is America becoming upside down, or am I crazy? I truly believe that America Has Been Overrun By Psychos like Ducky here and this Atheist Chump Xavier Onassis .

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

It seems as if the chickens have come home to roost

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I think what X.O. is saying is that his daughter is NOT having sex with her boyfriend, and that he made the whole thing up to see how people on this site would react. And every one played into his hands.