In case some of you were wondering why I sometimes go several weeks between posts, it usually is related to whether I’m taking BART to work. I do my best writing when I’m sitting on the train and already seething about the prospect of having to go to work.

Needless to say, I took BART today. I’m writing this article on my way home. I just encountered a fundie! Ugh! Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t fall under one definition of fundies, because they usually don’t try to erode the wall of separation. Since they’re a fringe group, they know that any establishment of religion wouldn’t be their flavor. (And does religion have “flavor”? They all taste like ipecac to me!) However, one of the other definitions of fundie is someone who tries to foist his own special religion upon everyone else. JWs roam the world doing just that, thus earning my ire and contempt.

As I was walking into the station to catch the homebound train, there was a Witless standing out front, proudly displaying his stack of Awake!s (The title of this rag is a bit ironic. If Witlesses were truly awake, they wouldn’t deny evolution. These people are just barely this side of Flat Earthers.).

As he saw me approach, he shifted on his feet and made his magazines a bit more prominent, both ploys to get my attention. I knew if I made eye contact that this dweeb would say something. I should be entitled to walk down the street without being assaulted by pedlars of first-millennium superstition. Rather than pretend that I don’t see him, which is what I do with the homeless (OH, COME ON! Like you don’t?!), I thought I’d take control of the situation. That puts him in the low-status, defensive position that he tries to put all of his quarry into.

That’s one way they’re able to move as much product as they do, by the way. By confronting you, they take the high-status position in the encounter, putting you into the low-status and defensive state. A lot of people will just take the Awake-brand toilet paper (also comes in pillowy-soft Watchtower design, too!) to get the situation over with as quickly and with the least discomfort as possible.

Most people harbor silly notions of manners and conflict avoidance. Well let me cure you of that right now! Save your politeness for people who are polite to you. Trying to convert somebody on the street is offensive, rude, and disrespectful. You are capable of seeking out any information about religion. You know where all of the churches are. You know where to get the books and the videos. You know you can find the religious radio and TV stations. It’s not a matter of not having access to the information. It’s easy to get. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for some pinhead to be standing in front of stores, transit stations, public squares, or other places trying to convert you.

Do they have the right to peddle in public? Absolutely. Should they? I have the right to fart in a crowded movie theater. Should I? In polite society, we don’t pollute the air that others have to breathe!

So as I was walking into the station, I looked at the Witless and, before he could speak, I said “You’ve got to be kidding!” and marched past him. It did the job. It kept him at bay. My only concern is that I could have said something funnier or more cutting.

So what do you think, dear readers? This blog has a comment feature. You need to be a member to post, but that’s just to keep the ’bots out. I won’t give your email to spammers (but if you post something I don’t like, I’ll send the Jehovah’s Witnesses over to your house to explain a few things to you!).

What should I have said to the JW?

The latest from the brain trust at the Fundie Research Council is a “marriage petition”:

Fifty religious leaders have signed a joint letter calling upon Congress to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment.

• First of all, what gives these religious pinheads the right to dictate secular law?
• Second, in what way does marriage need “protection”?
• Third, if marriage is so important to them, why don’t they treat it that way themselves? I guess if only heterosexual Christians can get married, then that means only heterosexual Christians can get divorced, which fully half of them do.
• Fourth, now that they’ve given the government full responsibility for raising their children, apparently it’s time to give the government full responsibility for their own lives as well. This is so typical of religious nutters. They’re incapable of thinking for themselves, so they let the church do it for them. Since the government still has domain over a few things that the church doesn’t, they need that government to explicitly forbid things. Freedom is overrated. It makes their brain cell hurt.

The Family Research Council sent me another email. (BTW, just what sort of “research” do these nitwits need to do on the family? “Prove” that gay marriage will bring God’s wrath down upon us in 1000 Katrinas? Instead, why don’t they research why half of all heterosexual Christian marriages end in divorce?)

Their message is calling April 25th a “national call-in day on broadcast indecency.” They say:

Please help us. Tomorrow, won’t you call your two U.S. senators and urge them to act on Rep. Fred Upton’s (R-MI) Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Act (H.R. 310)?…Broadcasters are now suing in federal court. They are claiming a so-called right to broadcast obscenities into our homes. This shameless behavior by the networks is a calculated insult to every American who cares about children and families.

Hey, there’s a freakin’ surprise! The bill is sponsored by a Republican!

I haven’t seen the text of the lawsuit, but somehow I doubt that the broadcasters are claiming a “right to broadcast obscenities.” That would serve no business purpose. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled years ago that indecent speech is protected, but obscene speech is not. My Satan-given psychic powers tell me that the broadcasters would just like to be able to air the occasional “hell”. That is (at most!) indecent, and therefore protected. Oh wait! Check my last post! This very same FRC was talking about how anti-abortionists had a right of free speech! I’m so confused! Are they in favor of free speech or against it?

We already curtailed the speech of TV broadcasters by “encouraging” them (under threat of even greater censorship) to come up with the content-rating system. No fundie ever needs to be exposed to what they believe are obscenities. Use your God-damn V-chip, you moron!

The latest idiot remark from Tony Perkins at the Fundie Research Council comes from his recent radio commentary:

A judge in the Sunshine State may have given residents a ray of hope on free speech. After months of giving pro-lifers the silent treatment, District Judge Donald Middlebrooks ruled that the soundproof zone around Florida abortion clinics violates the First Amendment. The law, which was designed to keep protesters at bay, banned unnecessary noise within a hundred feet of abortion clinics. But the truth is, there wouldn’t be any reason for the noise outside if those inside were straightforward about what abortion is, and does, to women.

Since when is this pinhead concerned about free speech? It’s idiots like this who complain every time they see a TV show that “offends” them. The only speech they want to protect is their own. Since they know for a fact that they speak for God, the subtext of their message is that they are protecting God’s speech. No one else’s speech is as worthy, so everyone else can be censored. That’s the problem with religious fanatics. They “know” they’re “right”, so they think they’re entitled to special privileges.

On the specific issue of a “soundproof zone” (I suspect that’s Tony’s term, because “soundproof” is a high standard to meet), cities regulate noise all of the time. You can’t blast your stereo too loud at night, because it disturbs the neighbors. The same logic extends to businesses. They should be allowed a reasonable amount of peace to go about their business. A quiet protester with a sign should be allowed to sit on the city sidewalk out front. But if a pack of wild fundies with megaphones is outside thumping bibles and harassing and intimidating everybody trying to pass by, that definitely falls under disturbing the peace.

It’s also ironic that Perkins is citing the First Amendment to justify his interference in other peoples lives. Hey, Tony, why don’t you read the other part of the amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof.

And check out his last sentence: “[T]here wouldn’t be any reason for the noise outside if those inside were straightforward about what abortion is, and does, to women.”

It’s all about his pious cause. Because he “knows” he’s “right”, he can make all of the noise he wants. And what’s this crap about “what abortion . . . does to women”? Since when do you care about women, Tony? Your religion has dominated and subjugated women for 2000 years! Your Pope turned Mary Magdalene into a prostitute, because women were getting too powerful in the Church! (and he was your Pope, because this occurred before the Protestant “Reformation”) And it was your church that suppressed the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, because it put women on an equal footing with men! And since when are you fundies ever concerned about the living, anyway? The only thing you ever scream about are the not-yet-living and the already dead (e.g., Terri Schiavo).

And don’t throw that word “straightforward” around, you hypocritical douche! How about being straightforward about your own agenda? Should we bring out the chastity belts now, or do you want a couple more Supreme Court justices first?