WASHINGTON, DCApril 1, 2009 — In an announcement that stunned the nation, Barack Obama called a press conference today to state that he is stepping down as President of the United States. Effective immediately, Hugh Beaumont will assume the role. Mr Obama also said that Joe Biden is being replaced by Ozzie Nelson. Similar replacements are taking place throughout Congress, although it is reported that Nancy Pelosi has locked herself in her office.

Given their obvious recent distaste for trusting in God, Christians can now resume trusting in their government and the renewed inherent and absolute morality of their country.

In unrelated stories, Steven Spielberg was kicked out of his country club and Michael Jordan was lynched in North Carolina today.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 at 9:37 pm and is filed under Church and Society, satire really. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

88 Comments(+Add)

1   nc    
April 1st, 2009 at 10:19 pm

ouch.

but funny

2   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:27 am

In a little known fact, Wally Cleaver was gay.

3   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:18 am

Seriously, Brendt, in the last three years I have added significantly to my ponderings as many images have become ubiquitous in the Christian internet. Here are a few that I present in question form:

1. Has a part of the church set up culture as an idol, including many who claim the gospel is transcultural?

2. Has a part of the church become enthralled with days gone by and repackaged the past to accommodate their longings?

3. Has a part of the church become so obsessed with castigating the present circumstances that they have inadvertantly projected God as losing the spiritual war?

4. Has a part of the church become so fixated on the sins and errors of others that they have ceased being fixated on Christ?

5. Has a part of the church become very adept of searching for, finding, and exposing the doctrinal and personal variances of some of today’s ministers but are equally adept at ignoring major doctrinal and personal variances of the dead theologians to which they pay homage?

6. Has a part of the church presented Christianity in a Pollyannish way that projects a self serving utopia rather than the bloody and messy job which is the redemption of the lost and the struggles of the redeemed?

And in light of these questions and others like them, has a part of the church changed the essence of Christianity and has now erected a stone, doctrinal monument and called it Christ?

4   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:23 pm

and the mindless hate goes on…

and ya’ll continue to become what you hate…

5   nc    
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:34 pm

you become what you…yaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwnnnn

6   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm

and the mindless hate goes on…

and ya’ll continue to become what you hate…

And you are what you are…

7   Bo Diaz    
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:32 pm

Mindless hate? Where? And for what?

8   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:54 pm

Bo,

Maybe Jazz is speaking of himself?

Really I have no idea where Jazz is coming from… but if it is about himself, then it is a major breakthrough in self realization!

:lol:

iggy

Sorry if I confused Jazz’s gender… it is not intentional.

9   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:07 pm

–Maybe Jazz is speaking of himself?–

No.

–Really I have no idea where Jazz is coming from–

Then you should read the OP.

10   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:45 pm

It is an April fool’s joke which apparently you are taking serious which is very funny! :lol:

iggy

11   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:46 pm

So still don’t know where you are coming from as it seems that where ever IT is there is no humor and joy…

:sad:

iggy

12   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 5th, 2009 at 11:46 am

–It is an April fool’s joke which apparently you are taking serious which is very funny!–

Common tactic here–defend the insults and misrepresentations by saying it is “only humor”.

Yet we all know what the OP is saying, so your defense is inadequate.

13   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 5th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

I refute the “mindless hate” characterization. I have a mind. :cool:

14   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 5th, 2009 at 3:19 pm

–I refute the “mindless hate” characterization. I have a mind. –

My comment was about the OP. If you wish to include yourself, you do so by your own choice.

15   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
April 6th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

Yet we all know what the OP is saying

We do? Hmmm, suddenly I’m not sure what I wrote.

Please enlighten me, jazz.

16   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 6th, 2009 at 1:39 pm

Brendt,

Apparently it offends Jazz that the 50’s and 60’s may not have been the “good ole days” as some people seem to act like and promote…

iggy

17   nc    
April 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

so…jazz…

you’re saying that this statement shouldn’t be joked about?

Christians can now resume trusting in their government and the renewed inherent and absolute morality of their country

Are you saying that Christians should place their trust in the government?

Are you saying that Christians in America should believe in the idea of an inherent and absolute morality that is America’s?

18   Bo Diaz    
April 6th, 2009 at 2:29 pm

Amazing. Just amazing.

19   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 6th, 2009 at 3:39 pm

–We do? Hmmm, suddenly I’m not sure what I wrote.–

–In unrelated stories, Steven Spielberg was kicked out of his country club and Michael Jordan was lynched in North Carolina today.–

Consider yourself enlightened.

–Apparently it offends Jazz that the 50’s and 60’s may not have been the “good ole days” as some people seem to act like and promote…–

No.

–you’re saying that this statement shouldn’t be joked about?

Christians can now resume trusting in their government and the renewed inherent and absolute morality of their country–

That statement is a part of the OP.

–Are you saying that Christians should place their trust in the government?–

What does that statement mean?

–Are you saying that Christians in America should believe in the idea of an inherent and absolute morality that is America’s?–

What does that statement mean?

20   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
April 6th, 2009 at 3:49 pm

I’m supposed to “consider [myself] enlightened” because you quote something that I said?

Re: enlightenment — To quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

21   Bo Diaz    
April 6th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

What the hell is EP so upset with?

Is he saying that its malicious to reference the sin of the past when the past is viewed as some sort of golden age to return to?

Or is he saying that blacks weren’t lynched and Jews weren’t excluded from country clubs in those days gone by?

But, then again, when your ideology is based on your self-righteousness its probably untenable when someone points out the sin of your ideal situation.

22   Bo Diaz    
April 6th, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Jazzact, EP, whatever, I was looking at his website and used the name of the website, instead of the person.

Just to clarify.

23   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
April 6th, 2009 at 3:57 pm

What the hell is EP so upset with?

Prescient knowledge that you were going to say “hell”? ;-)

24   Bo Diaz    
April 6th, 2009 at 4:03 pm

The hell you say!

25   nc    
April 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm

ummm….jazz….

are you dense?

The ‘OP’ is clearly a piece of satire.

so if you take issue with it, look at the content.

The piece states:
Christians can now resume trusting in their government and the renewed inherent and absolute morality of their country.

Why do you take issue with this satirical statement?

Do you think there is an inherent morality in America and therefore resent it if such an idea gets poked at?

that’s what those questions mean.

Why else would you take issue with the obvious satire unless you feel yourself the object of the satire?

26   nc    
April 6th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

btw, if you are someone the satire applies to…well…

suck it up…you deserve it.

:)

27   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 6th, 2009 at 6:41 pm

–I’m supposed to “consider [myself] enlightened” because you quote something that I said?–

You are the one who wrote “… suddenly I’m not sure what I wrote.”

–What the hell is EP so upset with? –

Do the moderators here now allow profanity?

–Is he saying that its malicious to reference the sin of the past when the past is viewed as some sort of golden age to return to?–

No.

–Or is he saying that blacks weren’t lynched and Jews weren’t excluded from country clubs in those days gone by?–

No.

–But, then again, when your ideology is based on your self-righteousness its probably untenable when someone points out the sin of your ideal situation.–

Such nonsense is not worth an answer.

–are you dense?–

irrelevant.

–The ‘OP’ is clearly a piece of satire. –

Common tactic here–defend the insults and misrepresentations by saying it is “only humor”.

–so if you take issue with it, look at the content.–

If you defend it, look at the content.

–Why do you take issue with this satirical statement?–

It is a misrepresentation.

–Do you think there is an inherent morality in America and therefore resent it if such an idea gets poked at?–

What are you asking?

–Why else would you take issue with the obvious satire unless you feel yourself the object of the satire?–

The satire is a lie.

28   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 6th, 2009 at 7:03 pm

Do the moderators here now allow profanity?

The moderators here do as little “moderating” as possible, primarily limiting moderation to those who post using multiple aliases, who are excessively off-topic and belligerent, and those who refuse to treat other commenters with basic respect.

As for “profanity”, we have, from time to time ****’d out certain words, but as far as ‘profanity’ goes, I’d refer you to this.

So, yes, it is likely we allow some ‘profanity’, as you might define it, but we also allow you, pastorboy, Ken, etc. to use uncharitable, un-Christ-like speech to describe other believers, as well. What you say will reflect on you, so why should we take responsibility for your words by filtering them?

Common tactic here–defend the insults and misrepresentations by saying it is “only humor”.

A) Who was insulted and misrepresented?
B) The category tag clearly says “satire, really” – not sure how more clear that can be. Click on it and you’ll see we have less than 20 articles tagged this way out of hundreds of articles…

–Why do you take issue with this satirical statement?–

It is a misrepresentation.

A misrepresentation of…

Seriously, folks, its no wonder fundies are considered to be a sanctimonious, humorless, parsimonious lot… they prove it over, and over, and over again…

29   Bo Diaz    
April 6th, 2009 at 7:09 pm

Jazzact really believes this wasn’t satire?

So he thinks that the author was advocating a return to 1950s era theology, policies and worldview and if that were to happen then Christians could go back to unquestioningly trusting government?

Does that really jive with what the authors of this website have in the past advocated?

And if he’s upset that a straight reading of this article is true, then isn’t he actually agreeing with the satirical reading of this piece witch the author has now affirmed?

To re-iterate: what the hell is Jazz so upset about?

30   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
April 6th, 2009 at 7:40 pm

You are the one who wrote “… suddenly I’m not sure what I wrote.”

So that’s your reason for (only) quoting back to me what I could have read myself?

31   M.G.    
April 6th, 2009 at 7:43 pm

I have absolutely no clue what Jazzact is upset about. Can someone clue me in?

32   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
April 6th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

jazz,

How about some actual engaging of the topic at hand, rather than a list of talking points (half of which have no relevance to the subject)? I realize that that might be classified as a “conversation”, but I promise not to tell anyone.

1) You classified this post as “mindless hate”. Who or what do I hate?
2) You accuse us of defending “the insults and misrepresentations by saying it is ‘only humor’”. Who was insulted? Who was misrepresented? For that matter who said “only humor”?
3) You again say that the OP “is a misrepresentation.” Of what?
4) Several questions were posed in the form of “Is he saying….?” You responded with only a “no” to each one. Fair enough. So what are you saying?

33   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 6th, 2009 at 7:55 pm

–So, yes, it is likely we allow some ‘profanity’, as you might define it, but we also allow you, pastorboy, Ken, etc. to use uncharitable, un-Christ-like speech to describe other believers, as well. –

And then…

–Seriously, folks, its no wonder fundies are considered to be a sanctimonious, humorless, parsimonious lot… they prove it over, and over, and over again…–

Irony.

–Jazzact really believes this wasn’t satire?–

No.

–So he thinks that the author was advocating a return to 1950s era theology, policies and worldview and if that were to happen then Christians could go back to unquestioningly trusting government?–

No.

–Does that really jive with what the authors of this website have in the past advocated?–

No.

–And if he’s upset that a straight reading of this article is true, then isn’t he actually agreeing with the satirical reading of this piece witch the author has now affirmed?–

(yawn) No.

–So that’s your reason for (only) quoting back to me what I could have read myself?–

If you needed reminding…

–I have absolutely no clue what Jazzact is upset about. Can someone clue me in?–

Read the OP.

34   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 6th, 2009 at 7:59 pm

–1) You classified this post as “mindless hate”. Who or what do I hate?–

Who is the target of you satire.

–2) You accuse us of defending “the insults and misrepresentations by saying it is ‘only humor’”. Who was insulted? Who was misrepresented? For that matter who said “only humor”?–

“Who was insulted? Who was misrepresented?” Who is the target of your satire.

“For that matter who said “only humor”?” Commnet #10.

–3) You again say that the OP “is a misrepresentation.” Of what?–

Who is the target of yous satire?

–4) Several questions were posed in the form of “Is he saying….?” You responded with only a “no” to each one. Fair enough. So what are you saying?–

and the mindless hate goes on…

and ya’ll continue to become what you hate…

35   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 6th, 2009 at 8:09 pm

Who is the target of yous(sic) satire?

I might hazard a guess, though Brendt could confirm this…

…the ‘target’ is probably Christians who seem to believe (or at least act like) the 1950’s were a “golden era” of Christianity, and if we’d only return to (X) decades ago, we’d be back on the right track…

Perhaps you don’t know anyone like this, but I run into them from time to time…

36   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 6th, 2009 at 8:10 pm

and ya’ll continue to become what you hate…

Whatever…

While you might ascribe to the old “repeat a lie often enough and it will eventually be believed“, your old ‘you become what you hate’ saw is as much of a lie now as when you first uttered it…

37   Joe    
April 6th, 2009 at 8:19 pm

and ya’ll continue to become what you hate…

Sure Jazz, Sure. Maybe when we’re done playing that game, we can all get into a corner and start chanting, “the world is flat, the world is flat, the world is flat.”

38   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 6th, 2009 at 8:20 pm

“and ya’ll continue to become what you hate…”

I hate myself, so does that mean:

“ya’ll continue to be what you hate”?

And since I hate everyone I have no place to go. :cool:

Hatred for me is a circular matrix of insularity. (smoke that in your crack pipe!)

39   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
April 6th, 2009 at 8:30 pm

and ya’ll continue to become what you hate…

You know the problem with this statement is that in the Bible, we never read of people becoming what they hate. We always read of people, in this case Israel, becoming what they love, in their case, the idols and false gods they worship.

We who happen to believe in the grace of God are becoming more and more like the gracious God who is compassionate and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in love.

You should note what you are becoming or already are. I suspect it reflects the sort of god you follow.

jerry

40   M.G.    
April 6th, 2009 at 8:41 pm

Re: 39

That’s a profound point.

41   nc    
April 6th, 2009 at 8:47 pm

Jazz.

Seriously,

why can’t you answer the question?

You really don’t think something is satire when it speaks of Ozzie Nelson and Hugh Beaumont taking over the government?

I mean, they’re dead and all…

Isn’t the joke obvious then? Satire is designed to poke fun at things. You may not like it, but to name something for what it does not add up to “an excuse”.

So again, it’s a satirical poke at the myth that the past was a time when America was living up to inherent righteousness.

Do you think America ever enjoyed or enjoys some kind of moral exceptionalism?

yes or no?

If yes: Is that why you’re all butt-hurt about this April Fool’s Day post?

If no: Then what exactly is up your butt about it?

These are not a hard questions, Jazz.

But it’s classic, Jazz. You’ve learned well from the imams. Don’t answer questions, just make claims and then trot out “you become what you hate” instead of actually dealing with the issues.

You ask for the “targets” of the satire.
Well, who do you think the targets are?

I don’t see any names other than some political figures and some dead actors.

Just in case you forgot:

Do you think America ever enjoyed or enjoys some kind of moral exceptionalism?

yes or no?

If yes: Is that why you’re all butt-hurt about this April Fool’s Day post?

If no: Then what exactly is up your butt about it?

42   Bo Diaz    
April 6th, 2009 at 11:03 pm

NC cuts to the heart of the matter. I’ll be interested in seeing the response.

43   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
April 7th, 2009 at 8:33 am

Brendt: Who or what do I hate?

jazz: Who is the target of you satire.

Although all you didn’t actually answer my questions, I’m going to assume (please correct me if I’m wrong) that you’re implying that I “hate” the target of my satire.

Next to “racism”, “hate” is probably the most over-used and inapplicable word in the American vernacular these days. Please explain to me how you have divined that I “hate” the target of my satire.

And try not to do it in the form of a question. This is not Jeopardy.

44   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 7th, 2009 at 9:10 am

Apparently Jazz thinks you are a racists Brendt… which seems then that Jazz totally missed the point.

iggy

45   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
April 7th, 2009 at 9:25 am

…the ‘target’ is probably Christians who seem to believe (or at least act like) the 1950’s were a “golden era” of Christianity, and if we’d only return to (X) decades ago, we’d be back on the right track…

Chris L is on the right track. That was one of two targets.

The other target is those who trust in gov’t, and refuse to trust in God. “But wait”, you say, “I’m not one of those goofs that thought that if he got elected, Obama was personally going to cut a monthly check for my rent. I don’t trust in gov’t.” But that’s not the only way to trust in gov’t.

Ever since November 4, the amount of fear in much of the church at large has sky-rocketed. Why? We (rightly) hold in derision the ideas of the afore-mentioned goofs, but then we run around like Chicken Little.

God was on the throne on November 3.

God was on the throne on November 5.

If the way that you lived changed significantly as a result of the election, then you’re not trusting in God.

To be sure, if you feel that the leadership change brought about a greater hostility to Christianity, then maybe there ought to be some change in your heart. But it ought to be to drive you closer to God and to increase your trust in Him. Which, in turn, ought to make you bolder (perfect love casting out all fear, and such). I’m not seeing a lot of that.

Wiser men than I have said that “gov’t can’t save you”. Many — even the targets of the satire — would probably acknowledge assent to that idea. But here’s the thing: gov’t can’t damn you, either.

46   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 7th, 2009 at 10:34 am

–Apparently Jazz thinks you are a racists Brendt… which seems then that Jazz totally missed the point.–

iggy…

http://icanhascheezburger.com/2009/03/20/funny-pictures-am-sorry/

47   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 7th, 2009 at 10:40 am

–…the ‘target’ is probably Christians who seem to believe (or at least act like) the 1950’s were a “golden era” of Christianity, and if we’d only return to (X) decades ago, we’d be back on the right track…–

An answer, at least in part.

Who are these people?

–While you might ascribe to the old “repeat a lie often enough and it will eventually be believed“, your old ‘you become what you hate’ saw is as much of a lie now as when you first uttered it…–

Says the person so becoming.

–why can’t you answer the question?–

What question have I not answered?

–Please explain to me how you have divined that I “hate” the target of my satire.–

Have you not read what you wrote? I have even repeated it back to you.

–And try not to do it in the form of a question. This is not Jeopardy.–

I will answer as I see fit.

48   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 7th, 2009 at 10:42 am

–The other target is those who trust in gov’t, and refuse to trust in God. “But wait”, you say, “I’m not one of those goofs that thought that if he got elected, Obama was personally going to cut a monthly check for my rent. I don’t trust in gov’t.” But that’s not the only way to trust in gov’t.–

Interesting.

So, to want good and godly leaders is to “trust in government”?

49   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 7th, 2009 at 11:02 am

So, to want good and godly leaders is to “trust in government”?

“F” for Reading Comprehension, jazz…

Here’s what Brendt said:

Brendt: If the way that you lived changed significantly as a result of the election, then you’re not trusting in God.

That says nothing about desiring godly leaders. Rather, it hearkens more to Paul’s advice to Timothy:

For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

Too many Christians I know personally have reacted as if the sky has been falling since late January.

Does this mean we should love Obama? Heck no – I hope he spends the next four years making an ass of himself, and is considered an abject failure (along the lines of Carter). Does that mean we should not want to elect a godly leader? No. It just means that we shouldn’t live our lives as if who sites in the Oval Office is a barometer of the state of Christianity.

50   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 7th, 2009 at 11:33 am
…the ‘target’ is probably Christians who seem to believe (or at least act like) the 1950’s were a “golden era” of Christianity, and if we’d only return to (X) decades ago, we’d be back on the right track…

An answer, at least in part.

Who are these people?

I know a few, personally, and I’m guessing there are at least a few more in existence. And as much as you seem to be dissembling, I’m guessing that maybe Brendt hit too close to home.

–Please explain to me how you have divined that I “hate” the target of my satire.–

Have you not read what you wrote? I have even repeated it back to you.

Back to “Reading Comprehension” – Chances are, if you’ve said something and repeated it, but nobody seems to understand what you’re saying, it is a lack of clarity/lucidity on your part, and it’s not an issue with them…

I don’t see that Brendt expressed “hate” for anyone in the OP, and to this point the only thing you’ve done is shown that you have a) a penchant for stale memes; b) a potential disability in regards to reading comprehension; and c) a somewhat self-righteous streak with no basis in reality…

All folks have asked from you is some clarity as to whatever your criticism might be, as your initial response was nonsensical and over-the-top, and your followups have been arrogantly cryptic.

51   nc    
April 7th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

So critique equals hate?

To recognize something for what it is (satire) is only “covering up”?

Huh?

See, Jazz. That’s the difference between people here and you.

You attribute motives and attitudes to people–making value judgements about them.

We ask questions about where you’re coming from–to explain on what basis you’re taking issue with the OP. So far you haven’t given us anything to understand.

52   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 7th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

“So, to want good and godly leaders is to “trust in government”?”

And just who, pray tell, are these “good and godly leaders”?

53   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
April 7th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

jazz accuses me of hate, insults, and misrepresentations

So I ask who I hate, insult, and misrepresent.

His response: Who are these people?

No, dude, I asked you.

(How can you tell me definitively that I hate, insult, and misrepresent people when you have no idea who I allegedly hate, insult, and misrepresent?)

54   Brendt Waters    http://www.csaproductions.com/blog/
April 7th, 2009 at 1:15 pm

And just who, pray tell, are these “good and godly leaders”?

I already said that, Rick — Hugh Beaumont and Ozzie Nelson. ;-)

Seriously, you make an even better point than I did.

Stop that. ;-)

55   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
April 7th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

you make an even better point than I did

So typical of Rick.
It’s a really bad habit of his.

56   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 8th, 2009 at 10:30 am

–“F” for Reading Comprehension, jazz…–

You are not my teacher.

–It just means that we shouldn’t live our lives as if who sites in the Oval Office is a barometer of the state of Christianity.–

If you wish to discuss politics, we can do so elsewhere.

–I know a few, personally, and I’m guessing there are at least a few more in existence. –

A few????

Are “a few” worthy of being satirized here?

No, you hunt bigger game, and you know it. A mere “few” would not be worth your time.

–Chances are, if you’ve said something and repeated it, but nobody seems to understand what you’re saying, it is a lack of clarity/lucidity on your part, and it’s not an issue with them…–

Or you fail reading comprehension.

–And just who, pray tell, are these “good and godly leaders”?–

Far too few who are now in the various offices. But you checked out of that, Rick, so go back to your cave.

–So I ask who I hate, insult, and misrepresent.–

And I answer “Who is the target of you satire?” Or “targets”, if you wish. If you cannot answer that, then you had no right to write what you wrote.

57   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 8th, 2009 at 10:43 am

A few????

Are “a few” worthy of being satirized here?

No, you hunt bigger game, and you know it. A mere “few” would not be worth your time.

A) I didn’t write the article, though I would say that “a few” is purposeful understatement, since I’m sure if I know a few personally (a number of whom also are obsessive email hoax forwarders), there are a lot more out there.

B) I wrote an article on depression a couple weeks ago, knowing a few people personally who suffer from this. I do not know how many readers could relate – but I know we get thousands per day. I often write things that not all of our readers are interested in, so it’s not about “bigger game” – it’s about what’s being said and whether it’s relevant or now. (And with the nerve this article seems to have struck w/ you, it probably is rather relevant…)

So, as I read your crypto-bs responses, I can only come away thinking that you’ve become what you hate, jazz..

58   nc    
April 8th, 2009 at 10:49 am

I’ll take these one by one:

1. You still get an F, student jazz.

2. The satire goes directly to religious understandings of politics. So we’ll discuss it right here.

3a. “A few” is an idiomatic expression. Are you that concrete? Are you that dense? See why you got an F?

4. Failure of “reading comprehension” is your demonstrated skill set here. Remember? That pesky F?

5. Nice try avoiding Rick’s question. But it goes to the heart of the satire. Where are you placing your trust, Jazz? For all the ’sovereignty’ of God you certainly don’t like this post that basically proclaims it.

6. Satire does not equal “hate”. Seriously. Are you one of those immature, whiny types that thinks disagreement means “attack”, “hatred”, etc.? Really? Grow up.

Get over it, jazz. You have better things to do with your time….like a crash course in “Hooked on Phonics”.

When you get an A on your book report on the Dick and Jane books, maybe we’ll let you watch the big boys play in the deep end of the pool.

I’ve got a nice pair of water wings for you when you’re ready. They have butterflies and rainbows on them-just the way you like.

yeesh

59   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
April 8th, 2009 at 10:53 am

nc, you are on a rampage today.

[hugs from PA]

60   nc    
April 8th, 2009 at 10:56 am

Talk about the proverbial water hitting the proverbial lower lip.

61   Bo Diaz    
April 8th, 2009 at 11:09 am

Why can’t Jazz give a straight answer to any question?

Like nailing jello to wall.

62   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
April 8th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

Bo, it isn’t “can’t”, it’s “won’t”.

Or more precisely, it’s “won’t” because no one actually can.

So maybe it is “can’t”.

Never mind. ;-)

63   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
April 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

“Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.”

64   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
April 8th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

65   nc    
April 8th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

jazz ran away…

typical

66   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm

–1. You still get an F, student jazz. –

You are not my teacher.

–2. The satire goes directly to religious understandings of politics. So we’ll discuss it right here.–

I have said little in this discussion pro or con about politics, and the point I am trying to make you see has little to do with politics, particularly about particular politicians of today. Introducing them is a diversionary tactic to shift the discussion. I will not allow that.

–3a. “A few” is an idiomatic expression. Are you that concrete? Are you that dense? See why you got an F?–

Then more than a few??? Several??? Many???

Again, who???

–4. Failure of “reading comprehension” is your demonstrated skill set here. Remember? That pesky F?–

You are not my teacher.

–5. Nice try avoiding Rick’s question. But it goes to the heart of the satire. Where are you placing your trust, Jazz? For all the ’sovereignty’ of God you certainly don’t like this post that basically proclaims it.–

Rick’s opinions on politics are already known. As we are discussing politics, his views have already been noted. They cut to the heart of nothing in this discussion.

–6. Satire does not equal “hate”.–

Already known, nor have I even hinted at such a thing in this topic.

–Seriously. Are you one of those immature, whiny types that thinks disagreement means “attack”, “hatred”, etc.? Really?–

No.

–Grow up.–

Why should I answer your questions when you have already answered them for me?

–Get over it, jazz. You have better things to do with your time….like a crash course in “Hooked on Phonics”.

–When you get an A on your book report on the Dick and Jane books, maybe we’ll let you watch the big boys play in the deep end of the pool.

–I’ve got a nice pair of water wings for you when you’re ready. They have butterflies and rainbows on them-just the way you like.–

This is the most appropriate response I can imagine to your tirade.

http://icanhascheezburger.com/2009/03/20/funny-pictures-am-sorry/

When you are less impressed by your ability to insult, return.

67   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 8th, 2009 at 2:54 pm

–A) I didn’t write the article, though I would say that “a few” is purposeful understatement, since I’m sure if I know a few personally (a number of whom also are obsessive email hoax forwarders), there are a lot more out there.–

Then you do acknowledge more. Who are they?

–B) I wrote an article on depression a couple weeks ago, knowing a few people personally who suffer from this. I do not know how many readers could relate – but I know we get thousands per day. I often write things that not all of our readers are interested in, so it’s not about “bigger game” – it’s about what’s being said and whether it’s relevant or now. (And with the nerve this article seems to have struck w/ you, it probably is rather relevant…)–

This OP, however, was directed at someone or someones. Who are they?

–So, as I read your crypto-bs responses, I can only come away thinking that you’ve become what you hate, jazz..–

Think what you will. Your opinion of me is as nothing to me.

68   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 8th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Then you do acknowledge more. Who are they?

Reading comprehension, again, jazz – I’ll eliminate the excess words, so that you can understand what I wrote:

I’m sure if I know a few personally (a number of whom also are obsessive email hoax forwarders), there are a lot more out there.

So – IF i know a few personally (see that first word “if”?) THEN there are probably more.

This implies that there are more (in the nebulous “they”), as if I knew them specifically they’d be in the ones I know personally (Kind of like an If/then statement in computer programming). The long and short of it is, it doesn’t matter who they are specifically, but rather whether they self-identify with wanting us to return to the time where “America was a Christian Nation”, etc., etc. So, if you self-select into that group (by choice, word or by action) , it is speaking to you. If not, it’s not.

This OP, however, was directed at someone or someones. Who are they?

Actually – from the title – it was a take on April Fool’s Day, noting that often the best pranks keep enough of the truth to sting, but not so much that it bleeds.

Who are they? See above. No group specifically, that I can see, other than those who self-select into the audience, by choice, word or deed…

I have said little in this discussion pro or con about politics, and the point I am trying to make you see has little to do with politics, particularly about particular politicians of today. Introducing them is a diversionary tactic to shift the discussion. I will not allow that.

I will not allow that? Are you now an internet tough guy?

As Brendt seems to note, part of the background of the satire is rooted in a certain Christian belief in the overlap between politics and religion. So, to try and divorce politics from the point of Brendt’s satire is to miss the point of the satire.

69   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
April 8th, 2009 at 3:34 pm

Chris,
Thanks for the laugh with the internet tough guy.
That definitely falls under the catagory of “Good Stuff.”

70   nc    
April 8th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

Ummm…

I’m not impressed with my abilities, jazz.

I am impressed by your ability to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

You complain that the post is demonstrates hate, the post is clearly satire, you deny that satire adds up to hate, but that’s all there is in the post.

The post does go back to people’s views on politics and how Christians engage it. That’s the basis of the satire. It is the heart of the issue in the joke.

You can’t see that?

Seriously. You still get an F, jazz.

I haven’t answered any of the questions for you. I can’t speak for you. See, that’s another critical difference demonstrated in this comment thread. I wouldn’t presume to answer for you.

You make claims about where people are coming from. We haven’t about you. We’ve asked for where you’re coming from and you won’t answer. So why do you bother?

You definitely earned that F.

“I will not allow that”. Strange. Sad and strange. But classic.

Another F.

71   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
April 8th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

you hunt bigger game, and you know it

Jeremiah 17:9 (from a newly discovered transcript):

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? And jazz stood up and said, “That would be me.”

72   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
April 8th, 2009 at 4:51 pm

I will not allow that.

OK, so jazz comes onto someone else’s blog and decides that he’s going to set the rules of engagement.

I don’t care who you are; that’s funny right there.

73   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 8th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

To Rick.

I owe an apology to you. Your question was not relevant to the topic as it is currently running, but my response to you was harsh, and for that I am sorry.

74   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 8th, 2009 at 5:37 pm

No problem, jazz. I still cinsider you regenerate. :cool:

75   nc    
April 8th, 2009 at 7:31 pm

I’m assuming jazz is saved.

He still gets an F.

76   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 9th, 2009 at 9:56 am

–Who are they? See above. No group specifically, that I can see, other than those who self-select into the audience, by choice, word or deed…–

And now you are Jerry Seinfeld, putting up a post about nothing.

One wonders why you bother.

–I will not allow that? Are you now an internet tough guy?–

smirk

–I’m not impressed with my abilities, jazz.–

Yet you went off for three paragraphs on mindless insults. You fool no-one, least of all yourself.

–I am impressed by your ability to talk out of both sides of your mouth. –

Where have I lied?

–You complain that the post is demonstrates hate, the post is clearly satire, you deny that satire adds up to hate, but that’s all there is in the post. –

I have said nothing inconsistent, if you would exercise the much-self-vaunted reading comprehension that you so proudly claim to possess.

I have not said that all satire equals hate.

I have not denied that the OP is satire.

I have said that the OP shows mindless hate.

There is no inconsistency in those statements.

–The post does go back to people’s views on politics and how Christians engage it.–

And again, who is the target of the satire?

–I haven’t answered any of the questions for you.–

You and those who found the OP “funny” are the ones who need to answer them, and then look at what the OP is saying.

–You make claims about where people are coming from. We haven’t about you.–

You haven’t? Almost every reply has possessed some measure of person insult about me, including yours.

But again, let’s get back to the topic–who is the target of the satire???

And I will again give the hint I gave earlier about my thoughts about this satire.

–In unrelated stories, Steven Spielberg was kicked out of his country club and Michael Jordan was lynched in North Carolina today.–

77   nc    
April 9th, 2009 at 10:32 am

positively tiresome…

you still get an F

78   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
April 9th, 2009 at 10:34 am

Jazz…

The “targets” are Steven Spielberg… a Jewish white guy and Michael Jordan a black guy…

So you are for keeping Jews out of private country clubs and the lynching of blacks?

Jazz you are either a sick person… or you totally are missing the point…

iggy

79   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 9th, 2009 at 10:44 am
No group specifically, that I can see, other than those who self-select into the audience, by choice, word or deed…

And now you are Jerry Seinfeld, putting up a post about nothing.

*sigh* we’re back to lack of reading comprehension.

When you have an audience in mind, generally (ex. people who, by choice, word or deed see the government as an extension of the power of Christianity), it does not require that you know their names or identify them specifically, lest you be “posting about nothing”. These people do exist, and I see kernels (or full blown manifestations) of this thought on almost a daily basis.

I have said that the OP shows mindless hate.

While you said this, you’ve done nothing to demonstrate any veracity of the claim.

And again, who is the target of the satire?

Christians who engage politics in a manner that suggests they put their faith in it, and not in God.

I think this has been made rather clear (and was clear in the OP) to all but the most obtuse (whether by choice or fault)…

And I will again give the hint I gave earlier about my thoughts about this satire.

–In unrelated stories, Steven Spielberg was kicked out of his country club and Michael Jordan was lynched in North Carolina today.–

Perhaps you have missed the point.

The point is not that those who trust in the government are anti-semetic or racist (if that’s what you think was suggested). Rather, keeping with the “golden era” of the 50’s (i.e. Hugh Beaumont & Ozzie Nelson), this satire is noting the types of injustice that were still not uncommon during this same time period…

80   nc    
April 9th, 2009 at 11:41 am

Chris L,

I applaud your persistence and hope for jazz.

81   jazzact13    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
April 10th, 2009 at 10:28 am

–So you are for keeping Jews out of private country clubs and the lynching of blacks?–

Iggy.

Thank you. I could not have given a better example of the hate in the OP.

–Christians who engage politics in a manner that suggests they put their faith in it, and not in God.–

And who are those people?

–The point is not that those who trust in the government are anti-semetic or racist (if that’s what you think was suggested). –

Am I the one suggesting it? Rather, it is the OP suggesting it. Nay, it is the OP saying it outright.

And that is hatred, and mindless hatred.

And you applauded it, and defended it.

82   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 10th, 2009 at 11:10 am
The point is not that those who trust in the government are anti-semetic or racist (if that’s what you think was suggested).

Am I the one suggesting it? Rather, it is the OP suggesting it. Nay, it is the OP saying it outright.

And that is hatred, and mindless hatred.

And you applauded it, and defended it.

And this is exactly why I note that you fail at reading comprehension.

The OP is NOT suggesting (or stating outright) that those who trust in the gov’t are anti-semetic or racist. Rather, it is observing the historical notation that the “good old days” had big (huge!) problems of their own, and that returning to those “good old days” is not a solution.

Christians who engage politics in a manner that suggests they put their faith in it, and not in God.

And who are those people?

Exactly who I said – Christians who engage politics in a manner that suggests they put their faith in it, and not in God. I can’t give you specific names, as I don’t know them all (or even a significant fraction), but I see the impact of their worldview all the time – whether I ever see their faces or know their names.

83   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 10th, 2009 at 11:15 am

Chris L,

I applaud your persistence and hope for jazz.

nc, I truly don’t know if he/she’s being purposefully obtuse here, or if it is just an inability to understand Brendt’s satire (which is, I would happily note, very dry, and relies on ones knowledge of US history and “the good ol’ days”, and which I find to be spot-on in identifying the historical myopia of part of the church).

I’m hoping it’s the latter, because that can be fixed. If it’s just purposeful obtuseness, you just have to hope that the Holy Spirit will do some more work…

84   Bo Diaz    
April 10th, 2009 at 11:18 am

Jazz is providing a perfect example of the inability of an ADM to understand anyone but another ADM.

You might as well be speaking in some kind of crazy moon language.

85   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
April 10th, 2009 at 11:55 am

Let’s give him a chance, Bo. There is always hope.

86   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
April 10th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

I think this disclaimer should be before posts like this:

CAUTION: Satire ahead, please proceed with understanding.

87   nc    
April 10th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

Jazz,

you’re racking up those “F’s”.

Way to distinguish yourself

88   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
April 10th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

Chris L: The point is not that those who trust in the government are anti-semetic or racist (if that’s what you think was suggested).

jazz: Am I the one suggesting it? Rather, it is the OP suggesting it. Nay, it is the OP saying it outright.

That’s a crock. Seeing as how I’m not blasphemous enough to claim to be God, I won’t add “and you know it” to the end of that sentence.

Chris, you need to take back that “F” in reading comprehension. The “F” needs to be given for American history (and maybe basic logic)

My post says nothing of the sort. As Chris L, later commented:

it is observing the historical notation that the “good old days” had big (huge!) problems of their own, and that returning to those “good old days” is not a solution.