December 2, 2006

You guys are all probably well aware of the news that the first Muslim elected to congress, Keith Ellison (D-MN), “has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the Koran.” And that it has raised some ire among my Christian brethren. For instance, at, Dennis Prager has written that:

[I]t is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Now one could argue that what Americans in general hold as their holiest book is not what “America” holds as its holiest book, that America’s culture, being a nation of immigrants, is multiculturalism, that the American government, being a secular institution, a nation of laws, does not, in fact, have a holiest book, and that the first amendment, stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” pretty much says exactly what Dennis Prager complains that leftists are saying, namely, that what is of most importance is what “any individual holds to be his holiest book,” as well as his right to express that belief (or lack of belief in the case of atheists — yuck). One could even argue that since Keith Ellison does not hold the Bible to be his holiest book, his swearing on it could, to him, be the equivalent of swearing on an equally fictitious Stephen King novel (I recommend The Stand, for obvious reasons — and I hasten to add that he would in fact be wrong, as the Bible is obviously not fictitious), and he might feel no obligation to stand by his oath, but that, since what matters is the oath itself, not the thing that makes the oath important to the individual, his swearing on the Koran, which he views as holy, and which adds importance to the oath to him, makes him more likely to take the oath seriously, which is better for all Americans. And further, one could argue that since “no religious test” may be required of a person before they can hold public office, and requiring one to swear on a specific religion’s holy text would be the definition of a religious test, requiring it would be doubly unconstitutional.

All right, so those are the arguments that could be made in favor of Keith Ellison being allowed to take his oath of office on the Koran rather than the much, much better Bible. I want to say, in case it’s not obvious, that those, however, are not arguments that I’m making. I do not in fact hold to any of those views, much less all of them. Americans have decided by majority vote that we are a de facto Christian nation, because the majority of them are, in fact, Christians. They say they’re Christian, and I’ll take their word at that, because a Christian wouldn’t lie about being a Christian if he wasn’t. And so they expect their congress to have Christian values.

So, sure, it’s unconstitutional to require that Ellison take his oath on the Bible — I’ll agree with that and even agree that’s it’s doubly unconstitutional; I do not deny “reality” — but so far as I can tell, and I think most Americans would agree, that is a flaw of the constitution, not of the Bible.

Which is awesome. After all, the Bible was written by God. The constitution was only written by a bunch of aristocrats with bad teeth.


August 14, 2006

I met a girl at church last Sunday. Her name is Rebbecca. She was very flirtatious with her eyes. She looked at me funny when I was trying to sing hymns. It distracted me. It confused me. I am fat, I am obnoxious — I know these things, I embrace them. Why was this pretty girl giving me “the eye”?

After church, she walked up to me and she said, “Hi, I’m Rebbecca.”

“Jon Myers,” I said.

“I know. I’ve read some of your writing.”

Was this why she was talking to me?

“I was wondering,” she said, “and I know this is forward, if you might want to go out tonight.”

This had never happened to me before. Usually, I walk toward a woman — just any woman — on the sidewalk, and she quickly crosses the street, glancing at me nervously. Normally, I sit down in one of the pews in church, and everyone, women and men both, slide to the opposite side, turning the bench into a very unbalanced teeter-totter. Normally, when my mom has gatherings of friends, she makes me stay in the garage.

And yet here was this pretty girl and she was asking me out.

“Okay,” I said. “But I don’t have a job. I’m a student.”

She said it didn’t matter, she would pay.

We went out that night. And then the next night.

And then the next night.

We talked. I found myself attracted to her. Sexually. I couldn’t believe it. The guilt. I remembered Paul saying it is better to marry than to burn — but I was just burning and burning for Rebbecca with no chance of marriage in sight. Plus, I don’t think sex should be used recreationally, even if one is married. That’s what Kirk Cameron films are for: entertainment. Not sex. Wait, I meant Kirk Cameron films are for entertainment, and that sex is not for entertainment. I did not mean that Kirk Cameron films are, themselves, not for sex, though that too is true.

Where was I?

Right. I don’t think sex should be used recreationally, even if one is married. But here I was so attracted to Rebbecca, and I wanted to have sex with her. But I knew she would never permit that, despite her mild — and surely brief — infatuation with me. But then last night, we were sitting on her couch watching LEFT BEHIND: WORLD AT WAR, and she turned to me, and she said, “Jon, has anyone ever told you how sexy you are?”

“No,” I said, truthfully. “No one’s even hinted at it.”

She put her hand on my thigh.

I felt something stirring beneath my corduroy.

I swallowed.

“Well, you are. And you know what else?” she said.


She leaned forward and kissed my mouth. I had eaten some garlic fries before we watched the movie and I was very self-conscious about it, but she didn’t seem to notice, perhaps thanks to the Altoids I had eaten afterwards.

Anyway, after kissing me she said, “I want to take your virginity.”

I stood up quickly, knocking Rebbecca over. She hit her head on the coffee table. She said the eff word. Twice. “Fuck,” she said, “what the fuck is wrong with you?”

And then I knew, I undestood completely. She was only pretending to be a Christian.

“How did you know I was a virgin?” I asked.

“My head is bleeding.”

“How did you know?”

“You wrote about it.”

“Is that the only reason you wanted to go out with me?”

“I just thought it would be funny,” she said. “You’re so self righteous. Really, you’re just such a little shit. I thought it would be funny to prove to you that you’re human too.”

“You think sin is funny!?” I shouted. The entire situation was compounded by Kirk Cameron on the television screen.

“I don’t think sex is a sin,” she said.

“Get out!” I shouted. “Just get out of here!”

“It’s my apartment,” she said.

“Fine,” I said, “then I’m leaving!”

“Good, you fat-assed little shit.”

I walked to the door, grabbed the knob, pulled. It didn’t move. The devil was holding me in here with this evil woman, holding me here, trying to make me sin. I shook the door, yanked as hard as I could, but it wouldn’t budge. Oh, darn you, Satan!

“The dead bolt, Jon,” Rebbecca said.

I stopped, unlocked the dead bolt and opened the door. I walked out. I couldn’t say anything. My face felt hot and cold simultaneously. I walked home. I couldn’t expect Rebbecca to drive me home after what happened.

When I got home, my mom was in the kitchen doing the dishes. She asked how my night went but I couldn’t even stand to tell her. I just grabbed a quart of ice cream and headed out to the garage. I forgot a spoon, but I didn’t want to see my mom — a woman — again, so I just scooped it out with my fingers. Rebbecca had fooled me. For an entire week, all I could do was think about her. I thought I might marry her and make babies. And then I found, she had no interest in me at all. She just wanted to have sex with me to prove a point.

Oh, women. They are just evil. From Eve on down. Every single one off them.

If it wasn’t a sin, I might turn gay.


August 8, 2006

A recent study found that teens who listen to “raunchy” music are more likely to have sex. According to an AP article written by Lindsey Tanner:

Teens whose iPods are full of music with raunchy, sexual lyrics start having sex sooner than those who prefer other songs, a study found.

Whether it’s hip-hop, rap, pop or rock, much of popular music aimed at teens contains sexual overtones. Its influence on their behavior appears to depend on how the sex is portrayed, researchers found.

Songs depicting men as “sex-driven studs,” women as sex objects and with explicit references to sex acts are more likely to trigger early sexual behavior than those where sexual references are more veiled and relationships appear more committed, the study found.

Teens who said they listened to lots of music with degrading sexual messages were almost twice as likely to start having intercourse or other sexual activities within the following two years as were teens who listened to little or no sexually degrading music.

Now, of course, it could be pointed out that the majority of teens who take chastity vows start having sex within one year, which means chastity vows may be twice as dangerous as dirty music, which is why I support living in such a way as to promote flaccidity in males — smoking, eating fatty foods — because that lowers the chances that one will be able to act upon temptation. I know it has saved me from sinning on many occasions. But this piece isn’t about flaccidity enhancers. Or chastity vows. It’s about raunchy music. Music with sex. I once heard a song by a rapper called Too Short, and it had some of the dirtiest lyrics I have ever heard.

I almost bust two nuts back to back / Never seen a bitch work head like that

No wonder teenagers are stripping off their clothes and “busting nuts” all over the place. Now, I know that people might argue that correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation. They might argue that teenagers who — for whatever reason — are already more likely to have sex, who already have sex on the brain, could possibly, maybe, listen to songs with lyrics about “busting nuts” and “working head” because those are subjects they’re particularly interested in, while more pure teens will listen to songs about, say, genies in bottles, who have to be rubbed “the right way.” But I don’t buy into that. People — especially teenagers — are obviously so dumb that if you plant sexual messages, subtle or otherwise, in music, and they hear it, eventually they become the sexual equivalent of the programmed hitman in The Manchurian Candidate, and start humping uncontrollably, no matter who’s there — and maybe they even do it in church.

It’s disgusting.

And that’s why I support strong government control of the music industry. Parenting, you see, is just too important to leave to parents. As a Christian nation, we must send a strong, governmental message to our sinning, Pavlovian populace.

“No!” we must shout. “You will not be busting any nuts today! And no!” we must shout. “You will not be working any head today! Working head and busting nuts is henceforth against the law, premaritally speaking, and listening to songs about such is a federal crime!”

And if that doesn’t deter them, mandatory chastity belts for unmarried females age thirteen and up.


July 31, 2006

According to a NEW YORK TIMES piece written by Laurie Goodstein, Reverend Gregory A. Boyd “was asked frequently to give his blessing — and the church’s — to conservative political candidates and causes.” The piece continues:

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?

After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

Reverend Boyd says he first became concerned with the mixing of Christianity and politics “while visiting another megachurch’s worship service on a Fourth of July years ago. The service finished with the chorus singing ‘God Bless America’ and a video of fighter jets flying over a hill silhouetted with crosses.

“’I thought to myself, “What just happened? Fighter jets mixed up with the cross?”‘”

I’d like to know what happened too — what happened to Reverend Boyd? Maybe he’s been replaced by a pod preacher or something, I don’t know. But I do know this: his attitude is just not right. Now I know there are liberal Christians — oxymoron, anyone? — who feel that Jesus was just a swell guy and probably really cuddly and pacifistic and such, but Reverend Boyd claims he is no liberal; he just doesn’t think that Christianity should be corrupted by politics. He believes, like Truman did, that politicizing Christianity, corrupts it.

And to that I say, “Huh?”

I mean, if you aren’t going to politicize Christianity, what’s the point? It’s just a really good way to get people to the voting booths, all indignant, ready to vote counter to their own best interests. That’s not easy to do, but politicizing Christianity is one good way to do it.

The liberal Christians — always the liberal Christians! — might argue that the point is finding a personal relationship with God, and letting that personal relationship guide you without politicizing an entire religion which can be interpreted so as to encompass almost every political ideology, in part because people inevitably bring their political beliefs and prejudices to their religion and project them onto it, finding religious justifications for positions they already hold — and there’s just no way to be sure exactly who — if anyone — is right.

And to that I say, “Huh?”

Of course there’s a way to know who’s right. It’s the guy who speaks the loudest, the longest.

How many people have heard of Reverend Gregory A. Boyd? Some, sure, but not as many as have heard of Jerry Falwell. And so we know, Jerry Falwell is right. Obviously. He’s been standing up there, shouting angrily, little white gobs of spittle forming in the corners of his mouth as he preaches, for so long that if he was wrong, he surely would have been discredited by now. But he never has been.

I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.

You say religion is about a personal relationship with God; I say the personal is political, and I feel personally that God hates liberals. And he probably doesn’t like super old people, either. He thinks they smell funny and are annoying, especially when He goes to the theater to catch Monster House, and some old fart is sitting behind Him, coughing on the back of His freakin’ neck, ruining the entire experience, so that He has to change seats and because He’s in the middle of getting re-situated He misses a really cool scene. Man, that makes Him mad.

And that’s why we need to finally get rid of Social Security.


July 28, 2006

Judge Roy Moore, who famously fought to keep the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, began writing an internet column this week, and so I thought I would reflect on the Ten Commandments and whether they should be posted in public places.

This is going to be very short. Yes.

Now, there are those who would argue that commandments such as “I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery; thou shalt have no other gods before Me” might not oughta be endorsed by a government that has an amendment in its Constitution which reads in part that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and legally that may be true; after all, putting such a commandment in a courtroom pretty well establishes governmental endorsement of a very specific religion and God — but I think people are missing the point that it happens to be the one true God.

Unfortunately, I learned recently, while reading my Bible, that that isn’t in fact one of the Ten Commandments — not exactly, anyway.

Judge Roy Moore and others like him have been fighting all this time for the wrong Commandments! You see, the Ten Commandments are usually pulled from Exodus 20:2-17, but those aren’t the real Ten Commandments — the Bible says so, and I think it knows a little more than Judge Roy Moore!

If you flip to Exodus 34:13-28, there you will find the real Ten Commandments. You know they’re the real Ten Commandments, by the way, because of the last verse, which is Exodus 34:28, where it reads: “And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.”

Now, I’m sure you’re wondering, Okay, Jon, what are the real Ten Commandments?

I’m glad you asked!

1. Thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.

4. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

5. And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.

6. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven;

8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.

So there they are, the real Ten Commandments! I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t like leavened bread that much anyway, though it is the best bread for sandwiches. And on the plus side, I’m pretty sure that since those other commandments aren’t the real Ten Commandments, you guys can go ahead and covet your neighbor’s wife — just don’t act on it!


July 27, 2006

According to a Reuters article, the “U.S. government’s crackdown on media indecency could prevent World War Two veterans from sharing their stories in an upcoming TV documentary series by Ken Burns, the head of the Public Broadcasting Service said Wednesday.” The piece continues:

Noted filmmaker Burns’ highly anticipated seven-part series “The War” features salty language used by servicemen and others. If the expletives make it to air, they could lead to crippling fines for the offending stations as a result of a new law signed last month by President George W. Bush. […] Under the new law, fines rise to as much as $325,000 per violation from $32,500.

That’s the kind of news that warms the cockles of my heart. Because I for one am sick and tired of foul language and obscenity on television (except on 24 — man, that show is cool). I know it could be argued that no word is inherently foul — that, say, vagina and pussy refer to exactly the same thing, and one is only considered dirty because, well, because it’s considered dirty. But that kind of argument is just not Christian. We need taboos, whether the taboo thing is inherently bad or not. We need taboos as an early warning system, you see, because if someone is willing to walk about in public using the p-word — who knows what else he might do? It tells us as a society that he must be watched — closely — because here is a man who does not follow the rules.

Now, sure, it might seem like a good idea to let aged World War Two veterans tell the stories of their experiences in their own words — but if they are allowed to use such language on television, who knows who else might expect the privilege?

Just because something is absolutely harmless, well that’s no reason to go allowing it. If we let people do harlmess things, that’s a slippery slope right into the harmful.


July 24, 2006

According to a Reuters article (which you can find here), written by Amy Norton, “[m]aintaining a healthy weight [and] not smoking” may “reduce the risk of developing erectile disfunction.” This, “according to a study that followed more than 22,000 U.S. men for 14 years.”

Now, I could never get myself to smoke — I tried, but I never found a cigarette I could tolerate — but I do maintain an unhealthy weight and have for some time. And I intend to continue to do so — because of the benefit stated above.

I’m sure many of you are thinking, But Jon, according to what you just quoted, smoking and obesity have a negative effect.

If that’s what you are thinking, it’s because you don’t know how to think outside the box (that’s a double entendre, you know, referring secondarily to the vagina).

Sure, smoking and obesity cause health problems. Sure, one is directly linked to lung cancer and the other is directly linked to heart disease. But I maintain that those things are a small price to pay for the main benefit, and it is in fact the main benefit of smoking and obesity which I quoted above: “erectile disfunction.”

When a word like “disfunction” is used to describe something, it’s tempting to think it’s bad, which is why I call smoking and obesity “flaccidity enhancers.” That’s right, I take the sex-crazed bias of the liberal media and spin it around on them! Flaccidity enhancers are an important part of the life of good Christians, because everyone is tempted to sin, especially sexually — what with all those half exposed dirty pillows on billboards and television, young women walking around Knoxville in short skirts, legs exposed and shaved and silky smooth, so you just want to run up and tackle them and start licking their legs furiously and taste the salt of their sweat in your mouth. Yes, everyone is tempted to sin. And flaccidity enhancers — when working properly — might not ensure spiritual purity, but they do ensure sexual purity. And as all Christians know, that is the most important purity there is.

So I say to all single Christian men: Light up! Eat that hamburger! And then eat a second one for God.


July 24, 2006

The above title is taken from a very dirty Kurt Vonnegut short story, and as a good Christian I rarely use that kind of language. But there is no other word — fuck — for the kind of sexual exploits which are now being studied. I accidentally stumbled upon a disturbing website called Boing Boing — referring to the sexual act, no doubt! — on which a person named Xeni Jardin posted about “sex in space” (you can find the post here).

Apparently, there is even a book about sex in space coming out next month, conveniently titled Sex in Space and written by Laura Woodmansee.

The Boing Boing piece quotes MSNBC science writer Alan Boyle as saying:

Sex in space would likely be “hotter and wetter” than on Earth […] because in zero-G there is no natural convection to carry away body heat. Also, scientists have found that people tend to perspire more in microgravity. The moisture associated with sexual congress could pool as floating droplets.

I’m blushing just reading that. Also, I may need a cold shower. The thought of vaginal fluids pooling together and floating through space like lightweight mercury — or worse, a wad of man…stuff floating through space like the ghost of Elmer’s glue — just disturbs me to no end. Americans’ obsession with sexual congress is part of what is wrong with America.

Put down the condoms and pick up the hymnals, America! Use the phrase “Oh, God!” the way it was intended to be used, in reverence — to God.

I find it disturbing enough that people have been studying sex on Earth for so long — but now, people are even studying future sex. People’s obsession with sex — oral sex, anal sex, missionary position vaginal sex, doggy style vaginal sex, doggy style anal sex, reverse cowgirl vaginal sex — is just…it’s what, in part, is wrong with this country. I myself am a proud virgin at the age of 23.

You may be thinking, But, Jon, you’re 5’7″ and 280 pounds, and also incredibly annoying, so of course you’re a virgin. You couldn’t get laid in Tijuana with a hundred dollar bill safety pinned to your shirt.

Which may be true, but it isn’t the point. Even if I could, I wouldn’t.

The sexual act should be performed only by married couples in an attempt to breed. This is why I support abstinence-only sex education. Now, sure, there are those who would argue that denying people knowledge of sex is more dangerous than giving it to them (knowledge, not actual sex), that since the drive for sex is natural, denying people knowledge of sex only makes it so people cannot deal with a natural drive in an educated fashion. That with knowledge comes power — that with knowledge of sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, contraceptives, and so on, people can protect themselves from the dangers of sex. That ignorance will never eliminate a person’s natural drive for sex. And furthermore, that sex itself — like the drive for it — is perfectly natural and has no more inherent meaning than, say, pooping, though it often feels a great deal better (I have heard). That it can be special, and meaningful, if we love the person we’re sharing the experience with — but that it can also be a good way to kill an hour before heading off to see a film, and nothing more.

Yes, there are those who would make such arguments. I call them atheists. And since there is a 93% chance that you are not an atheist, I trust that you would never make such an argument, or buy into such an argument.

And since we’re in agreement, I urge you to never, ever have sex in space, unless you are married, and having sex in order to produce a child.

But for God’s sake — and I mean that literally: for God’s sake — don’t you dare enjoy it. Because then it’s a sin.