Welcome to Factonista.org

Factonista is an online freethought advocacy organization that relies on its users for content. Through international broad-based collaboration with its users, and other groups and organizations, it strives to provide timely and comprehensive news, views, reviews, and creative multimedia on issues at the forefront of everything under the umbrella of freethought

Not a member? Register | Lost your password?
Hi and welcome to Factonista. Please keep in mind we're still in BETA. We'll be fully functional very very soon. In the mean while feel free to browse around, read our articles, and participate in our discussions. If you note any bugs and feel like helping us out, forward a quick message to us here. Thanks! [close]

Posts Tagged ‘christian’

This term “fundamentalism”

Monday, October 20th, 2008
Fundamentalism is one of the most problematic and misread/misused terms in all of the discussions I see about politics and religion, even on this site. It is used in an inappropriate context and is made into an uncontested term. It has been given this really horrible negative condentation… It has been turned into a short hand inprecise pejorative of modernist arrogance. Its like the word terrorism, what are we even talking about anymore when we talk about terrorism? It is automatically assumed that we know what we’re talking about when we say “the war on terror” but what the hell does that even mean?!The easy way of seeing this is to think of where the term fundamentalism *should* be used. To do this we have to look at the history of it. The fundamentalists come from the 19th century. They were against all biblical reforms and humanistic developments. The protestant biblical hermeneutics were threatening classical thinking of the church and the fundamentals were striving to protect that classical way of thinking. The modernizing and liberalizing of the classics resulted in this modern reaction of trying to restore classical and originally revealed words as to access their original knowledge.

Thus it is use most correctly when we are using it in response to liberalizing modern biblical hermaneutics – or to give this some modern condentation, those that strive to keep the constitution in its original form, those that treat it as a pseudo-sacred text and as the inviolable foundations of which the U.S law is based on.

When people start talking about “fundamentalist islamic terrorists” or something of that nature I want to rip my hair out. Not only are the more common areas of Islam *not* fundamental on any level, that entire phrase has almost lost meaning.  Its the same as when people refer to the conservatives in the United States as fundamentalists.

The American movement of American Portestantism that came up a centruy after the fundamentalists stressed the infallibility of the Bible, all the way through to historical records, such as creationism and a physical resurrection. However – just because someone is a conservative who doesn’t believe in abortion doesn’t mean they’re a fundamentalist.  If you’re refering to a creationist who wants to stone gays and ignore millions of years of history … then fine, throw out the word fundamentalist. But seriously, Fox News, CNN and bloggers everywhere throw the term around like it holds no real context. This is tres stupid, and not to mention, tres annoying. Please stop.

Now I understand the argument that “words change meaning” over time. That is absolutely true…like naughty, the immediate thought with crack, gay, nice, queer, punk, brat, hot (or hawt)… etc. But the issue with fundamentalism is that people are still technically referring to what it *used* to be, it hasn’t changed meaning at all – people still mean it as being a totalistic commitment to something. If people were using the word correctly there wouldn’t be any “fundamentalist atheists” out there…and someone deeply in love with Christ but who is a member of the United Church of Canada also wouldn’t be called a fundamentalist.

[/rant]

I ought not to say such things

Tuesday, October 14th, 2008

I’ve saved writing about the recent vandalism at the University of Alberta on Edger until now for a few reasons. Mainly, I wanted all the heat to settle down, for our new banner to go up, and for as many facts and opinions to come in as possible. Also, it should note this post will mirror the original and follow up posts from my own blog.

So first, let’s try to go through the order of events as objectively as possible.

  1. We’ve been working at the University of Alberta for a while now to try to achieve a secular convocation ceremony. As part of this campaign, I wrote an opinion article for the campus newspaper, which attracted both negative and positive reactions (about two weeks worth of letters).
  2. The UofA Atheists and Agnostics large (5′ x 8′) hanging banner gets vandalized over a weekend after hanging in an atrium for several weeks and the entire previous semester. The contact email and website were cut from the bottom and the phrases “God loves you,” “Jesus is coming,” and hearts and crosses are drawn across the banner.
  3. We later figured out, after removing the banner (while unveiling the new one), that the heart and cross were added to cover up some other writing. We couldn’t make out what was written under the heart, as the writing was mostly indistinguishable.
  4. I reported the incident to campus security the morning I discovered the banner and issued press releases to all the media outlets in town that I could get a hold of. CTV (local television) later did an interview with me (not YouTube’d yet). I also wrote my first blog post on it.
  5. After having a number of the “atheist community” blast me for using the word “hate” I wrote my second post saying simply that I called this act for what it was, although it wasn’t the position my group had taken. This was further clarified later in the week when another member of my club’s exec appeared on campus radio to discuss the issue.

So what are my thoughts on the issue?

First, one of my Christian friends (who heads the local IVCF chapter), wanted to point out:

1. The hate crime (I don’t mind calling it one… it was) was performed as it seems as a response to previous events on campus in which I had only a few glimpses of knowledge.

2. To comment about the vandalism without commenting about the convocation debate seems in some sense to be making a sideways response to the one event.

I find it utterly appalling that he tries to justify this action as a retaliation for my writing an article in a campus paper. I wrote some words. They drew and permanently damaged property that wasn’t theirs. Big difference. I may have offended them, but they actively worked to remove the ability of my group to advertise itself – a right possessed by every group on my campus (including the Pro-Life group). Being offended isn’t a protection we afford people in Canada (generally).

But what else happened here? When I went out actively looking for support, I instead was told: “this is more of a love crime” from some atheists. People I expected to side with me and back me up in denouncing an act of targeted intolerance against my group instead chastised me for overreacting.

Let me emphasize, my friend, an evangelical Christian, and the Pentecostal group on campus agreed with my denunciation of the event, while atheists and the United Church chaplain (a very liberal church in Canada) thought I was being unreasonable for expecting some sympathy.

I can understand having small posters vandalized or ripped down – at 5-15c a piece, I would be surprised to see all of them after a week. But for someone to go out of their way to deface and damage a large hanging banner, required planning, time, and effort (I believe they actually removed it from the building it was hanging in, did their damage, and then re-hung it – mainly because it was attached to the wire it hung from differently).

So why the argument? I really don’t see why, as an atheist, I can’t say that an act of intolerance against my group is equivalent in terms of intolerance and hate to writing “God hates fags” on a gay-support group’s banner, or “terrorist” on a Muslim banner. Just because they put a heart on it doesn’t mean that’s what they’re feeling.

Even if I grant that they may actually feel that God does love us, that still doesn’t change the intent of the actions, which was to imply that our group shouldn’t be spreading its message, and should instead accept Jesus (or burn in hell, as the implied alternative).

So I just thought I’d put it out there: clearly a double standard exists within the atheist community that we can’t cry foul, even when it happens to us. And I think this is the greatest tragedy of this entire debacle.

So here’s where I’ll summarize my positions:

It’s a hate-crime to commit any crime based on intolerance. However, standing on a bench shouting that atheists should burn in hell, while in bad taste and rudely offensive, should not be a crime, but should not be encouraged.

Finally, to end on a positive note, here’s the video of my group coming together to repaint and hang a new banner:

Christian sex secrets revealed

Saturday, October 11th, 2008

Sometimes you can’t make this stuff up:

Just A Taste Of What You’ll Discover…

How to banish premature ejaculation.

How to eliminate “quick” erections.

How to become a multi-orgasmic male.

Discover why God hates “sexless marriages.”

Standard response to an atheist article

Friday, October 10th, 2008

To save Christians the time in writing original responses to articles written by atheists, I’ve taken the time to compile a basic template that any fundamentalist could use to respond to these sorts of articles. I figure it’s a sign of good faith (puns always intended).

That Ian Bushfield is one angry atheist.

He’s such a fundamentalist, with his belief that God doesn’t exist.

He’s so militant, writing words in a campus newspaper rather than taking up arms or violence.

He’s so arrogant, suggesting we should test ideas against the real world before accepting them.

He’s so intolerant, speaking out when we want him to shut up.

He’s so evangelical, wanting people to question their beliefs, regardless of what they may be.

He’s so Utopian, hoping for a better world.

He’s such a progressive liberal-leftist, even though he hasn’t written about politics or economics yet.

He’s so ignorant, for not accepting or understanding every nuance of my religion.

He’s so immature, clearly belief in God is sophisticated endeavour.

He’s so immoral, I mean, how can you really be good without someone watching over you?

He’s so self-centred, because he doesn’t think God talks to him personally.

He’s so nihilistic, for thinking that for him since life ends at death, he should value every moment he has alive.

He’s so communistic, since he clearly worships the state above his fellow human being.

He’s so angry, because he has to put up with intolerant jerks like us.

God loves you,

Anonymous Christian Student

(Adapted from my blog Terahertz)

This is Why Jesus is Not a Friend of Mine

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

This video is from a real ska band called Sonseed.

I tried to find lyrics of this song online, but I couldn’t find any. However, courtesy of me, I transcribed the lyrics of song! (Further proof that I have no life.)

Jesus is My Friend by Sonseed

Jesus is a friend of mine
Jesus is my friend
Jesus is a friend of mine
I have a friend in Jesus

Jesus is a friend of mine
Jesus is my friend
Jesus is a friend of mine

He taught me how to live my life as it should be
He taught me how to turn my cheek when people laugh at me
I’ve had friends before and I can tell you that
He’s one who will never leave you flat!

Chorus

He taught me how to pray and how to save my soul
He taught me how to praise my god and still play rock and roll
The music may sound different but the message is the same
It’s just an instrumental praise his name

Chorus

Jesus is a friend of mine
Jesus is a friend of mine

Once I tried to run, I tried to run and hide
But Jesus came and found me and he touched me down inside
He is like a mountie, he always gets his man
And he’ll zap you any way he can. Zap!

Chorus

He loves me when I’m right, He loves me when I’m wrong
He loves me when I waste my time by writing silly songs
He loves me when I’m quiet and I have nothing to say
He’ll love me when I’m perfect if I ever get that way

Jesus is a friend of mine
Jesus is my friend
Jesus is a friend of mine
I have a friend in Jesus

Jesus is a friend of mine
Jesus is my friend
Jesus is a friend of mine
I have a friend in Jesus

Jesus is a friend of mine
J-J-J-Jesus
Jesus is a friend of mine

That was frightening, but I did enjoy this part of the song:

But Jesus came and found me and he touched me down inside
He is like a mountie, he always gets his man
And he’ll zap you any way he can

Potato Preacher – A Skeptic’s Guide to Angus Buchan

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

When some 60,000 men gather in a rural area for a Christian-themed event, my senses begin twitching. Not only the number but the exclusive gender sent alarm-bells chiming in discord. This happened in April 2008 and it was/is called, disgustingly, the “Mighty Men” conference. Held at Greytown, here in my country South Africa, men – and only men – flew from all around the world to see the preaching of a man in a hat. (At one point, the largest tent in the world was used. Yes – in the world!)

His name is Angus Buchan. He first came to prominence after the release of his book, followed by a movie, entitled Faith Like Potatoes. As the IMDB plot-summary (1) says:

Angus Buchan, a Zambian farmer of Scottish heritage … leaves his farm in the midst of political unrest and racially charged land. [He] travels south with his family to start a better life in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. With nothing more than a caravan on a patch of land, and help from his foreman, Simeon Bhengu, the Buchan family struggle to settle in a new country. Faced with ever mounting challenges, hardships and personal turmoil, Angus quickly spirals down into a life consumed by anger, fear and destruction. Based on the inspiring true story by Angus Buchan the book was adapted for the big screen … and weaves together the moving life journey of a man who, like his potatoes, grows his faith, unseen until the harvest

He began giving talks and preachings across the country soon after. As he told The Argus:

“God gave me a directive to turn fathers back to sons and sons back to fathers, to take back the family unit.”

Although he has been asked why there was no conference for women, he said his directive had been to challenge men to stand up and be counted: “To be prophet, priest and king. They must be the breadwinners, protect their wives and discipline their children.”(2)

“God gave me…” – Yes, we have someone else who has a red-phone connection to god. The number 60,000 is quite staggering. Apparently, 80% of the men who attended were Afrikaners which only makes sense. There is a high religiosity amongst the Afrikaner people here in South Africa, of a particular conservative kind. I know quite a number and have been to church services – the passion runs deep to engage with their lord. They are friendly, open people neither racist nor stupid but certainly very isolated from having a figure that represents them on an international level. They have found that in Buchan.

Buchan himself is often shown to be the epitome of an Evangelical Afrikaner: friendly, passionate, warm and very conservative in his beliefs. To say that the Afrikaner people – or Christian people in general – are clutching at straws would be nearer the mark given his statements and views.

Call me paranoid, but I’m wary of anyone who speaks or knows something about the monotheist god that I do not. Or rather, I’m mortified by someone who has a real-time feed to god’s consciousness.

Buchan, in July,  drew an audience of 70,000 people at Loftus (also in South Africa). He tapped into iGOD and was able say: “God is here. The Lord is here” (3). The resounding cries of “AMEN!” could shake the fabric off any veil of reason.

Not only were over 70,000 people crying their hearts and eyes out, the event “was also broadcast live to about 500-million people around the world on GOD TV, one of the world’s largest Christian television networks.” (3) We are not dealing with small fish here. There was nothing particularly new, enlightening or incredible about Buchan – except for his readings of the Bible that sees the lowering of women to be “looked after” by the husbands and for the “discipline of children”.

Until recently…

Not a week ago, he was in my city of Cape Town defiling the air with nonsense. According to Buchan, prayer has cured homosexuality, illness and depression. I have problems with saying “prayer” does anything let alone “cure”. Let us avoid that and say rather a “positive outlook” cured the illness and depression (I don’t know one way or the other if prayer has ever had an effect but so far the view is still zero, alongside the Loch Ness Monster and fairies). Curing is great. But what on earth does he mean by “curing” homosexuality?

I find it hard to fathom that these talks, which he’s still giving around my country, is based on logic like this. This is an insult to reason and humanity. What is more insulting is the lack of rationalist critique. We are a fragile nation, prone to acts of violence against ourselves. We’ve seen it recently in our mad xenophobic attacks, our change of power – its a soil teeming with uncertainty. As I said, when someone like Buchan comes along, exuding confidence, Christianity and conservativeness, you have an engine roaring to go. The Buchan machine is moving through the country and, with his nonsense spewing out, he is continuing to defile the air.

Harsh? Hostile? Yes. I’ve never presented myself otherwise to a decent person’s reasoning. I’m angry not at Buchan – he can keep his views. I am angry, upset and largely disappointed that he is having sell-out shows. I am upset that no one is taking notice of people who are no doubt longing for some answers to our confused place in history. Where do we go, what do we do, who do we learn from? Our future president Jacob Zuma is drowning in a sea of corruption charges, fighting sharks invisible and real who are rightly placed to point their fingers at his abuse of justice.

I will now take the fallacy of the straw man quite literally.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

3. Person B attacks position Y.

C. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.(4)

I have focused on his statements and shown the context in our volatile, fragile and somewhat desperate and desparate nation. But perhaps it serves a motif: All these people are clutching at straws and Buchan is that strawman.

He stands for racial equality and integration (speaking fluently in one of the many beautiful official languages in South Africa). But he misses the boat by relying in Bible (il)logic. This will not do. We must make a stand for reason, we must face the teeth of superstition with the hammersmack of logic. We are not so far gone as reasonable, decent people to invoke this man as a pathway to the numinous. We all long for the numinous and the transcendent. Religion’s usurpation of this longing, framed in the light to the “one god”, is relentless in using this as an undertow to a natural wanting. No more.

It matters not that the feelings expressed tapped into something. Remain at a cold-distance to those who know the mind of god and claim to cure homosexuality. Rather, we should remain sceptical of his approach until such time as he has given us reason to be other than suspicious of his rehashed, evangelical ramblings.

REFERENCES

1. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0850667/plotsummary

2. http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=vn20080427092124938C359962

3. http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=vn20080721062415305C191170

4. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Fundamentalist Theatre 3000 BC: Bibleman – A Fight For Faith

Friday, September 12th, 2008

Today I will review Bibleman – A Fight for Faith so you won’t have to lose your brain cells. You can view the whole thing HERE.


Yes that’s right… discontented with the lack of overt religious themes in mainstream superheroes such as Superman or Spiderman, CBN has created a series called “Bibleman”. Part Jedi Knight (who, judging from the choreography hasn’t even mastered the simple Shii-Cho form) and part former security guard turned holy avenger, Bibleman battles stereotypical one-sided supervillains, some of whom have been effeminized to imply that they are homosexuals.

In the beginning, Bibleman’s sidekick Cypher (the African-American in the picture) fights off thieves who intend to steal bibles from a Christian bookstore and burn them… for no particular reason whatsoever except maybe that they hate religion or something.

We soon find out that the real enemy is someone named ‘The Wacky Protester’ (the ridiculous-looking thing at the left of the poster), who has a machine that generates a portal to a virtual world where “there is no God”. The Protester essentially wants to lure little kids into his ‘funbox’ (nothing wrong there…) and convert them into atheists, as if there isn’t any indoctrination coming from anyone in the religious community and just being an atheist were some sort of horrible atrocity. It is at this point where the film makes a pathetic attempt at pop culture, when the talking computer that is the Wacky Protester’s partner in crime compares his virtual world machine to “The Matrix”.

Two kids are quickly abducted from a Christian summer camp, lured inside the machine, and converted into atheists by the virtual world’s subpar 3D graphics and random buzzing CGI bees… somehow. But unfortunately for the Protestor, Biblegirl – despite being a creationist and biblical literalist – is able to spout out a bunch of Treknobabble in Bibleman’s pseudoscience lab to determine what was happening to those two kids who became atheists.

Bibleman and Cypher then engage in a battle royale with the Wacky Protestor – if you consider a crappy musical number and lightsaber choreography more pathetic than any Star Wars fanfilms that I’ve seen a ‘battle royale’ – to save the souls of those two children. Of course, God always wins in the end, so despite the Protestor and his swarm of CGI bees’ best efforts, Bibleman prevails and those two kids can continue to be good fundamentalists who will grow up voting Republican because of ‘family values’ issues.

It’s ironic that Bibleman – A Fight for Faith implies that atheists are out to indoctrinate young people into not believing in Christianity when the film itself is doing the exact same thing towards atheism – essentially indoctrinating kids, who form and hold opinions much more easily than adults, that atheists are all elitist college nerds who should be feared. But I would argue that this film also teaches kids a far more dangerous lesson – that people different from your conservative Christian self are somehow ‘out to get you’; replace ‘atheist’ with any other religion or ethnic group and this film would be just as reprehensible. On the other hand, the effort (or lack thereof) that CBN put into special effects made the film more hilarious and bearable than otherwise intended.

Overall, for promoting negative stereotypes about atheists and to aim it towards the most susceptible audience possible, Bibleman – A Fight for Faith gets 4.5 out of 5 popped collars.

Why Sarah Palin Should Scare You…

Thursday, September 11th, 2008

I watched Sarah Palin’s speech during the Republican National Convention, and I have to disagree with most of the punditry that it was some sort of stroke of brilliance. Ms. Palin’s speech during the RNC was filled with lies about her record, lacked any specificity, demeaned community organizers, and used her ‘experience’ as a PTA member and mayor of a small hamlet as some sort of force multiplier that magically made her more experienced than Barack Obama or even Joe Biden.

But more importantly for the readers of this site she (perhaps wisely) did not discuss her religious views. In short, Sarah Palin is a closet Christian extremist. In a previous article, Roy mentioned that Palin believed in teaching creationism in the classroom. With China generating 300,000 engineering degrees a year – 240,000 more than the United States and roughly a 25% high rate per capita – we seriously risk endangering our position as the technology capital of the world especially if we are mired in such distractions.

She does not believe in abortion rights even in case of rape, incest, or the health of the mother, despite this position only supported by 18% of the population. Even among those who consider themselves ‘pro-life’, she is in the minority, as most believe that some sort of exception must be made.

Palin also has very little knowledge or opinions on foreign affairs and even less (if any) experience. But what she does believe in should scare you; I will let this video speak for itself.

This, combined with McCain indicating that he would pursue a hyperaggressive, confrontational foreign policy along with the possibility that neoconservative “Democrat” Joe Lieberman may fly up to Alaska to ‘tutor’ Palin on such matters is truly terrifying. In short, I cannot trust either McCain or Palin with the world’s most powerful conventional military and its second largest nuclear arsenal.

But behind every far-right fundamentalist is a far-right fundamentalist church. Meet the Wasilla Bible Church.

From it’s gay-to-straight conversion camps to its pastor invoking the typical “America is a sinful nation, Doomsday be upon you!” screed, it certainly does not look encouraging to secularists or even the majority of Christians.

Some may be wondering why I won’t bring up Barack Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright to be ‘fair’. This is because Rev. Wright’s political views are just that – political; although I don’t agree with much (if anything) that he said, after hearing his sermons it is clear that Rev. Wright justifies his views from his personal experiences and political leanings and NOT the Bible; it is very conceivable that if Rev. Wright were an atheist, Buddhist, or any other religion, he would still hold the same political views.

South Park + Free Speech = A Bad Day for Religion Part 2 – Christianity

Sunday, August 31st, 2008

Part 2: Christianity

Comparing South Park’s (SP) portrayal of Scientology (part 1) to the portrayal of Christianity is like comparing Hiroshima to the invasion of Iraq.  The attack on Scientology was mostly done in one epic episode that aimed at completely dismantling the cult’s credibility.  Christianity, on the other hand, is given some lenience.  Parker and Stone attack Christianity often, but not nearly as harsh.  It’s more like a slow moving invasion of Christianity’s most cherished beliefs.

Their main source of lampooning this religion is through one of SP’s most beloved characters, Jesus – a resident of South Park.  Parker and Stone have anthropomorphized  Jesus, taking him off the podium where Christians have placed him.  To Parker and Stone, Jesus was just a normal guy; that is…if he even existed at all, which is evidenced in season 11 where they have Jesus residing in “Imaginationland.”

The funniest Jesus antics are his attempts at magic.  In “Super Best Friends” Jesus loses a battle of magical talents to David Blaine.  In the scene, Blaine first eats his own head and the crowd goes wild.  Jesus pulls out a cart of fish and exclaims “Certainly not enough to feed this entire crowd, but now – turn around.”  As the crown turns around Jesus pulls out fish and bread from behind the cart and piles it on top of the cart.  Jesus then tells the crowd to turn back around, which does, and to the viewers’ amazement, starts cheering in awe.  What better way for Parker and Stone to make fun of Jesus then to show how people are gullible to simple miracles magic that Jesus most likely performed (if he even existed).


Aside from poking fun at Jesus, SP also takes on the institution of Roman Catholicism.  In “Red Hot Catholic Love” father Maxi from South Park goes to the Vatican to inform them of his shocking discovery that all American priests molest little boys, only to find out that all of the members at the Vatican do as well.  Even the Galgameks molest their children.

In “Hell on Earth 2006” priests and bishops are shown walking with little naked boys on leashes.  They attempt to get into a party being held by Satan who is ironically gay. To make matters worse, in the SP world, the Vatican is governed not by the Pope, but by a giant queen spider that appears before the members of the Vatican.  Father Maxi is fed up and gives a typical SP rant.  “When you start turning the stories into literal translations of hierarchies and power, well… Well, you end up with this. [shows the ruins, and then the Queen Spider, then the Gelgameks].”

In another instance, Jesus tells the Pope “…men are so easily led astray. St. Peter was a rabbit. And a rabbit should be Pope.”  It’s a safe bet to say Parker and Stone don’t like Catholicism when they speak of a rabbit having better judgment than the Pope.

On numerous occasions, Christian organizations have attempted to have SP episodes banned from TV and DVD sales, but to no avail.  The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, run by Edger’s beloved friend Bill Donahue (insert sarcasm), condemned an episode because of the portrayal of the Virgin Mary.  They demanded that Parker and Stone apologize to Roman Catholics and that the episode be retired from ever airing again.  Parker and Stone did neither.  The American Family Association (A Christian backed organization) convinced advertisers like Best Buy, Geico, and Foot Looker to pull out their advertisements during the show and even persuaded J.C. Penny to stop carrying SP merchandise but failed to get episodes pulled.

One only has to look at how many Christians live in America to see how dedicated Parker and Stone are to attacking the taboo.  They risk losing millions of viewers because of their portrayals of Christianity, and surely they’ve lost many, but continue to make fun of it nonetheless.

For the sake of keeping you from reading too much, I’ve left out other SP attacks on Christianity.  Here is a shortlist of some more.

South Park has shown,

Next week is Part 3 – Islam

Fundamentalist Theatre 3000 BC – Megiddo: The Omega Code 2

Sunday, August 31st, 2008

I admit that I have an affinity for crappy movies. I was one of the few who actually spent money to go see Uwe Boll’s epic computer game-turned-into-movie disaster ‘In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale’ and am a fan of those wondrously bad Sci-Fi Channel Original Movies. Another element of my strange hobby consists of watching fundamentalist (mostly right-wing Christian) films such as Left Behind, Bibleman, and others. Often armed with a low-end budget and reasoning akin to the Kirk Cameron/Ray Comfort ‘banana’ argument, one can derive a certain cynical hilarity from these films as well. For everyone else though, I have volunteered to watch these films so you don’t have to (or don’t want to waste the time doing so).

Aside from the obvious outlining of the plot and the various pitfalls of the movies, I will be assigning a ‘rating’ to the movie consisting of one to five popped collars, where one popped collar is mildly annoying and five popped collars is the epitome of douchebaggery.

Today’s review will be of The Omega Code 2: Megiddo. You can view/download the entire movie HERE free and completely legally.

Michael York stars (the guy from those old Three Musketeer films) as Stone Alexander, the Anti-Christ. Also of note is R. Lee Ermey (the drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket), who plays the President of the United States. Megiddo is the only true right-wing Christian ‘war’ movie set during the end times; other films such as the Omega Code 1 and the Left Behind series were always more dramas with elements of conflict.

The first part of the film essentially follows the life of a young Stone Alexander, as he fails to kill his infant brother David Alexander as a youth, graduates at a top military academy, and later employs ruthlessness and a diabolical intellect to climb his way up the political ladder to eventually become the leader of the European Union. In his personal life, Stone eyes Gabriella Francini – the daughter of the man who runs the military academy – and threatens and reveals himself as the AntiChrist to her father to pressure him into accepting her as his wife.

Stone’s political stature increases even further as a worldwide food crisis looms; as other first-world governments fail to respond to the threat, his EU introduces revolutionary new food wafers, genetically engineered crops, and new desalinization technology to quickly mitigate these issues. Using the political capital gained from his management of the situation, Alexander proposes that there be a ‘global democracy’ consisting of ‘ten world regions’ and himself as the Chancellor.

Of course, all offers of global peace are frauds perpetrated by demons masquerading as world leaders, so many people were rightfully skeptical. Among those is the President of the United States and David Alexander, the Vice President of the United States. Both somehow intrinsically (when completely lacking evidence, trust your gut!) know that Stone Alexander is somehow evil and plotting to take over the world. Unfortunately for President Ermey, his drill sergeant-esque awesomeness and his complete willingness to go against Congress, the American Public, and his very own Secretary of State (all three of whom support the ‘global democracy’) was no match for the Anti-Christ and a subtle but very lethal dose of poison.

When his brother and now-president David Alexander continues to resist the formation of the new world order, Stone Alexander kills his own father and frames David for the murder. Stone then takes control over his father’s media empire in order to further propagandize the world population and sway it into accepting his proposal. Meanwhile, David is branded as a traitor and fugitive by his own country and by the world. But surely this goodly conservative president who is solidly against the sentiments of the American people and who issued numerous executive orders without Congressional oversight has done nothing wrong, right?

People begin to realize that Stone is not all who he appears though. When Mexico refuses to join the New World Order, Stone unleashes a drought upon the entire nation. China, too, resists and is hit by a locust swarm and forced to join. Elsewhere, a spike in the level of natural disasters not caused by Stone – a symbol of God’s wrath – fuels discontent among the people towards the new world government. But perhaps the most ridiculous part of the film happens when Stone takes a trip to Africa to shore up support for his flagging coalition. When the African crowd – which initially enthusiastically addresses Stone with stereotypical tribal hollering – reacts negatively to Stone’s completely reasonable demand that he be worshipped as a god, the good Anti-Christ rains lightning down from the sky to force the crowd into submission.

Stereotypical tribal yelling? A white guy resorting to ‘magic’ to get an uncouth mass of Africans to worship him as a god? Nope, not racist at all. Maybe this is a window of how the filmmakers view Africa though – as some sort of ‘Dark Continent’ full of heathens who need to be converted to the Goodly Religion. But I digress…

With all the ten world regions subjugated and the pro-Satan Secretary of State seemingly in control of the US Armed Forces, Stone Alexander orders an army from all of the ten regions to gather at Megiddo to prepare to battle God. Fortunately for his brother David, the US Military in this universe actually unflinchingly serves it’s Commander in Chief rather than the Constitution no matter what he has done. Naturally the US’s sources of cheap labor – Mexico and Godless Heathen Red Communist China (go figure…) – are also prepared to do God’s work and, along with the US Army, plan on turning against those pansy liberal Europeans gathered at Megiddo.

The forces of good initially gain the upper hand with the element of surprise. However, it turns out that in the near future every nation in the world will employ generic M1 Abrams tanks that snail along at 3 mph. It is no wonder then that on the verge of defeat, Stone Alexander reveals himself to be a bad CGI of a giant flying horned baboon… thing who imbues his troops with unholy strength to turn back the tide. Predictably leading the counter-charge are those godless former Communists – the Russians; never mind the fact that we have our own godless Communists the Chinese who for some reason fight on the side of God and are kind enough to supply us with lead-coated Cabbage Patch Kids dolls.

The flying demon baboon who I assume is supposed to represent the Anti-Christ then blocks out the sun purely for dramatic effect and engages in a one-on-one fight to the death with David… because that’s how all battles are supposed to be decided. With the Mexicans and Americans on the brink of defeat and David badly injured, it appears that the entire world would be doomed to an existence of worshipping some giant flying baboon… thing while holding their laughter back or risk facing his simian wrath. But fortunately for our heroes God decides to spontaneously appear, kill all the evil soldiers, and lock the Anti-Christ in a molten prison in the center of the earth – thus making all the elan, tactics, strategies, and bravado exhibited by both sides of the conflict completely irrelevant! The End!

Overall, the first part of the movie wasn’t that bad. We get a sense of what ends Stone Alexander is willing to go to get ‘his way’. And despite his being more ruthless and more ambitious than all his colleagues, we also can connect with those people around him who aren’t possessed by the Anti-Christ, especially his wife and his father. One thing I especially liked about this part of the movie was the subtleness that Michael York portrayed Stone at this juncture – unlike with the Left Behind series, York is a very experienced actor who does try to bring out the most in his lines.

The battle scenes during the second part of the movie were passable given the $10 million budget (which is actually higher than most fundie films). The inclusion of plenty of pyrotechnics, dozens of vehicles incorporated into each shot, and many extras gave the sense that one actually was watching a major battle – granted, not the battle for the end of the world and one without any tactics or overall strategy, but nonetheless an impressive feat given the typically low quality found in this genre of films.

However, given the latent racism against the Africans, the implication that liberal Europeans are going to ruin the world unless a right-wing law-breaking US president stops them, and that CGI ‘Anti-Christ’ that I still can’t get over, I give this movie a rating of:

2.5 Popped Collars