Report: Pentagon Spent $100,000 to Debate ‘Did Jesus Die For Klingons Too?’

November 16, 2012 at 12:57 pm (Budgets, Government Waste, Jesus, Klingons, Pentagon, Spending, Tom Coburn)

And herein lies why you don’t pull 42-year-old men out of their mother’s basement and hand them a job in the research department at the Pentagon.

Via Politicker:

The federal government spends money to fix the country’s infrastructure, help senior citizens get affordable access to health care and beef up national security, but did you know that it also pays for stuff like workshops on Star Trek musings?

The Washington Times reports that Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has brought to light some of the Pentagon’s non-security focused spending, which–as a small-government Republican–he naturally wants cut. Buried among the list of things the Pentagon supposedly spent money on, including a new form of rolled-up beef jerky, is this little gem:

$100,000 for a 2011 workshop on interstellar space travel that included a session entitled “Did Jesus die for Klingons too?” The session probed how Christian theology would apply in the event of the discovery of aliens.

We’re unsure how a workshop focusing on the hypothetical mixture of Star Trek and Christian doctrine cost $100,000, unless they actually hosted it in space, but perhaps that new rolled-up beef jerky is expensive to cater.

Check out the report at the Washington Times, it actually gets worse.  To give you an idea, the aforementioned beef jerky ran a tab of $1.5 million, with the funding coming from money that was designated for a weapons program.

How do you solve a problem like government waste and excess?  Perhaps the better question would be, what would Jesus do?

Advertisements

Permalink Leave a Comment

Actual Article: Sympathy For Those Who Want to Have "Sex" With Children

September 9, 2012 at 1:00 pm (Children, Cord Jefferson, Gawker, Jesus, Noel Sheppard, Pedophile, Pedophilia, Rape, Sex, Warner Todd Huston)

Gawker may have never produced such an offensive article in their long offensive history as the one they posted on Friday by Cord Jefferson.

The title says it all:

Born This Way: Sympathy and Science for Those Who Want to Have Sex with Children

Not once in the lengthy piece does Jefferson refer to the act in it’s proper terminology – rape.  Worse, he categorizes the act of raping children as a ‘sexual orientation’, treating it as a harmless choice no different than homosexuality, as opposed to a violent crime.

The article is sick and disgusting on so many levels.  It begins with a sympathetic story involving a man named Terry, who has been convicted of raping his seven-year-old niece.  Fitting with the theme that this was a sexual act and not a crime, Jefferson attempts to create sympathy for the rapist – portraying him as a religious man who was the victim of an abusive marriage, and describing what happens with his niece as an actual ‘relationship’.

As Jefferson explains, “it’s not easy to listen to Terry talk about the time he had sex with a seven-year-old girl”.  I would imagine it would be infinitely harder to listen to the little girl’s version.  Or her parents story.

Terry, Jefferson then explains, “fell for his niece and began a sexual relationship with her”.

The rest of the story is rather graphic.

The problem here is that the author doesn’t seem able to comprehend the difference between rape and sex, and he is rationalizing the behavior of pedophiles.  As an example, at one point Jefferson describes the rapist’s mindset – “I had the thought that I would never hurt her and that she would grow up trusting me.”

This is such a typical behavior by pedophiles that it’s hard to imagine anyone could write such a statement without recognizing it as “grooming”, a technique used by child rapists to gain the trust of their child victims.

Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters also points out that Jefferson wonders why pedophiles “don’t enjoy the same kind of tolerance” as other people who may simply be attracted to “busty women” or “tall men”.

Holy hell!  In what parallel universe does a sane individual not recognize the difference between being attracted to busty women and small children?

Sheppard also points out that a case for tolerance can be made, according to the article, because ‘Jesus would embrace pedophiles’.

Warner Todd Huston points out in his analysis that this simply isn’t so:

Gawker writer Cord should be ashamed of himself for having said that Jesus would “embrace” pedophiles. As the website Poor Richard’s News notes (by way of Newsbusters), the Bible does not excuse pedophilia..

But whoever causes the downfall of one of these little ones who believe in Me—it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea! — Matthew 18: 6

“Jesus died for the forgiveness of sin, not the embrace of it,” the site notes. “The Bible is very clear that while all sins can be forgiven, Jesus never ever embraces the sin itself. He made no bones about the punishment for harming a child.”

There is a special section in hell for child rapists, no doubt.

Gawker needs to apologize for this piece immediately and let the public know that Jefferson’s pro-pedophilia platform will not be tolerated in their pages again.

Terminate this sick, sick man immediately.

Permalink Leave a Comment