Most of the letters in our collection seem to be authored by solitary simpletons, but this one is written by a preacher; that makes it deserving of our special attention. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and as we usually do we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Here we go, with a bit of bold font added for emphasis:
Amid all the recent discussion concerning Christianity, evolution and politics, dare I step into those tepid waters? Well, yes, I do.
That is admirable indeed. It requires a lot of courage to step into tepid waters. Let’s see what happens next.
Some things are grey, some black and white. History is of the black and white category (an absolute).
We get the creepy feeling that something genuinely strange is coming our way. Let’s read on:
It is disparaging indeed to see the liberals’ continued refusal to accept our founding history.
If the rev thinks that’s disparaging, he should learn what we think of his vocabulary. We continue:
Rather it is their relished desire to re-write history and even re-interpret the Constitution (as if any of us were qualified to do so). Their direction is only that of their own beliefs and oft silly opinions. Historically, Christianity and Creationism prevailed in America.
We have no “relished desire” to re-write history, so we can acknowledge that the rev is correct. Historically, creationism did “prevail” in America — and everywhere else too. But all that changed after Darwin’s theory was published. Similarly, monarchy “prevailed” in America — until the Revolution. Does the rev advocate monarchy because it once “prevailed”? Hey — paganism “prevailed” everywhere too. Does the rev share our enthusiasm for the Olympian gods? Where is the rev going with his black and white approach to history? Let’s read some more to find out:
Without controversy, there is no substantive evidence to back up the theory of evolution (”theory”) and its closely tied bedfellow Secular Humanism (the schoolboys’ religion) Yet, the attempted bullying continues to rear its ugly head (hoping to secure position and credence by suggesting the aforementioned are “scientific fact”).
Aaaargh!! There’s no “substantive evidence” for evolution — that’s what the rev wrote. What can we say? If the rev had at least the awareness that God gave the amoeba, he wouldn’t have started that paragraph with the phrase “without controversy.” As for the rest of that paragraph, we won’t make any jokes which take advantage of the preacher’s mention of schoolboys and bedfellows in the same sentence. Other bloggers may succumb to such temptation, but your Curmudgeon is above that sort of thing. Here’s more:
Of course the fossil record quickly dashes that premise back into the slimy mire from which it obviously arose.
The slimy mire? What’s he saying — that the fossil record came from there? It did. Or is he referring to the “premise” of evolution? Hey, Adam came from the dust of the ground, so if the rev’s reference to the slimy mire was intended as an insult, it’s not working very well.
With all this nearly impenetrable prose, it’s difficult to figure out what the rev is trying to accomplish here. Ah — all else was just prologue — here comes the true purpose of the rev’s letter. Don’t be confused about the parentheses and brackets in this next excerpt — they’re in the original:
So, dear liberal, why all the fuss over Gov. Rick Perry’s position on Christianity and evolution? You too, have a religion (based upon a theory [evolution and governmental indoctrinations]) which you follow. But, somehow , yours is OK, and your candidate’s “religion” is OK, but, Perry’s is not? What do we like to call your position concerning this? That’s right: “prejudice.”
Here’s one last excerpt from the end, as the rev addresses Perry’s “prejudiced” detractors:
While I must admire your efforts to change the things you believe in, please don’t try to change history and the Constitution in order to accomplish your desires. Try rather, to do it honestly and work within the given parameters.
Can we wrap this up without saying that: (1) the rev is a flaming idiot regarding science, history, and the Constitution; and (2) he’s unable to express himself clearly in the English language? No, we can’t avoid that if we do our customary closing paragraph. So we’ll end here without saying those things.
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.