Church of God in Christ: Disempowering Blacks with Ignorance

It just occurred to me how awful the Church of God in Christ is. I got a tract from them today in the mail. It's a preprinted jobbie from an outfit, and I'm not lying about it, called: "Chick Publications."

It's called:
I'll say: You people are fucking bonkers. (The author, in the corner there, I imagine, is Jesus Titty-fucking Christ.)

Anyway, I was going to show the whole thing and rip it apart, but let's just look at a few panels, isn't we? The story is that the world is going completely mad, boogedy boogedy boo. Who will come to the rescue? SUPERJESUS! I'm sorry, I digress. What first irritated me was this little slice of lebensraum:

Did you notice that the big-nosed international banker? Does that disturb anyone else but me? The name sounds German, not Jewish (the von is associated with nobility). But then again, these people may be both illiterate and racist.



You can't have it both ways. The common man is either a "thinker" or someone who lets other people to do the thinking. You are flattering them with assurances that they are thinkers, but in fact are encouraging hopelessness and powerlessness: embrace the powerlessness you are saying. A desperate person is a vulnerable one. You are such wonderful people.

Oh! I hated this panel too!



The first one is, well, yeah. People, even physicians want to get paid for their work. Even, ahem, pastors. So, yeah, lick it, scrote. "Mental breakdowns" is a nice hearkening back to the world of 1950s lingo, which, by the way, is where the electroshock therapy image you have comes from as well. It's still used--but I imagine hardly ever as a first round of treatment for...anything. Your last depiction of people on meds is inaccurate and insulting and only perpetuates a stereotype against people who have real medical problems. Indeed, the strange stigma still attached to mental disorders (also evident in the 1950s, when psychoanalysts basically if you were sick, something was wrong with you) makes it harder for people to get sometimes desperately needed treatment. What is worse is that you will go on and suggest that therapy and monitored regimens of psychiatric therapy doesn't make you happy. Only Jesus makes you happy. You should be crucified for getting in the way of people and real, non-cult related help.

The next one irritated me too (surprise, surprise!)



Wow. How completely can religionists not understand something. Let's take science, for instance. People don't worship at the Temple of Beaker and Bunsen. Science proceeds without the apparent intervention of any divine being, and it certainly does not rely on theistic-style belief. You know, I wish that the scientist had said, "I'm very sorry, but I'm a molecular gastronomist." Molecular gastronomy cracks my shit up.

The punchline, however, comes with the surprise ending.



BUT GOD LOVES YOU! Heheh. Anyway, the moral of the story is apparently: things suck, and instead of doing anything about it, give up. At least the molecular gastronomer is learning how to boil a better egg. These people have given up on...people, really. I'm so glad I don't depend on these people for anything.

Jesus is no substitute for serotonin, people. This is what I am saying. And who the fuck said that you were going to reign with Christ. OK, Timothy (thanks, google). But over what? All the other assholes reigning with him? Heehee. You people crack me up.

Anyway, this all suggests to me that these particular evangelical assholes have a stake in seeing people miserable. And it got me wondering about the asshat who sent it to me, some dong from the Church of God in Christ. "Church of God in Christ" seems to me to be a completely made-up sort of church name. Indeed, it is one of those novelty black churches. Apparently ANYONE can be a bishop now, as long as you make up your own church.

I went to the national site for this endumbening abomination of a movement. Facts...fuck 'em. Not only are they ignorant of the sciences, but history eludes them as well:

"We believe that since the beginning of recorded history, in most cultures of the world; marriage has been defined as the lawful union of one man and one woman. The traditional form of marriage is one of the bedrock institutions of most societies. We, therefore, affirm the preservation of the present definition of marriage as being the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife."

"Of course, we don't read much history, or any of the history that we don't like." Indeed, the current American nuclear family model is the exception to the rule. Marriage was not static. The great founders of the Judeo-Christian tradition had oodles of wives. Oodles! Also, Jesus said, "Fuck your family! Come with me (sucker)!" Real nice family values there, asswipe.

We believe that these unions are sinful and in direct violation of the law of God in that they are a deviation from the natural use and purpose of the body.

Ah, the ad naturam fallacy! One of my favorites. Sure, there are male penguins who "do the nasty" and there are great apes who will fiddle with anyone's particulars, but homosexuality is "unnatural." What about those perverse hermaphroditic frog species, hm? Those little Jezebels.

Indeed, I noticed that in my own former church, the Catholic one, one of the ways to knowing the truth of god is, indeed, a logical fallacy, the ad antiquitatem, or the appeal to tradition. It's amazing how universally acknowledged pseudoproofs are the bedrock doctrine for emphatic assertions of utter codswallop, innit?

HJ