Movies I Have Never Seen

That everyone just assumes that everyone else has seen.

In alphabetical order.

Avatar

Bull Durham

ET

Deliverance

Die Hard

Fast Times at Ridgemont High

Field of Dreams

Good, the Bad and the Ugly,The

It's a Wonderful Life

Jaws

Lethal Weapon

Matrix, The *

Rocky

Slap Shot

There will be Blood **

Titanic

Top Gun ***

Also, I have never seen anything with Bruce Lee, Only one Dirty Harry movie, and only one James Bond (During high school, my friends and I would go see whatever happened to be playing at the $!.50 theater. That is how I saw "Octopussy," which killed any interest I might have had in seeing any other of the Bond series.)

* I saw a couple of scenes when my friend was showing off his fancy newfangled DVD player. They were awful.

** I know this got great ink, but I hated Magnolia, I wa underwhelmed by Boogie Nights, and I'm just not that eager to sit through, what is it, like 3 1/2 hours to give Paul Thomas Anderson a third strike.

** * I did see part of this at a friend's house. I fell asleep. I don't think I missed much.

The Washington Post is Pathetic, Tony Perkins is an Asshole

So last Monday was National Coming-Out Day. I didn't know there was such a day, but it seems like a good idea. Apparently, the Washington Post doesn't share that view, because their guest columnist for that day was the truly egregious Tony Perkins of the horrible Family Research Council.

There has been a rash of suicides in the news lately. We hear these horrible stories about young people being tormented to the point of ending their own lives simply because their classmates hate them for being gay. Truly horrible. So the Washington Post gets notorious gay-hater Tony Perkins to comment. What the fuck?

Here's the explanation they provided to GLAAD:

GLAAD's initial tweet:
The @WashingtonPost Gives Platform to Anti-Gay Activist http://bit.ly/crX6q5 #LGBT #gay

Washington Post reply:
Hi @glaad, we're working to cover both sides. Earlier, we hosted Dan Savage of It Gets Better in a live chat. http://wapo.st/aA8SXX

Yeah. They think that there are two sides to this story. The story about suicide. They had anti-suicide columnist Dan Savage (who is awesome, by the way) so now you have to have, what, a pro-suicide column for "balance?"

I'm not sure when this started, this insistence on "balance." I assume it's a byproduct of the 40+ year right wing assault on the media. Media outlets are so terrified of being labeled "left-leaning" or "liberal-biased" that they bend over backwards and forwards to give the appearance of objectivity to every story. That's why a large percentage of people believe that the "jury is still out" on global warming, because any time there's a story about rising sea levels or melting icecaps the media fell the need to include some Exxon-funded hack scientist proclaiming that up is down, hot is cold, and the icecaps are growing. It's bullshit, of course, but apparently enough people are buying it to make it worth the industry's while to keep funding the bullshit stream.

But this sinks to a new level of disgusting. Take a look:

Christian compassion requires the truth about harms of homosexuality

By Tony Perkins

The media has recently been filled with reports of several recent suicides by teenagers who are reported to have been victims of "anti-gay" bullying. Some homosexual activist groups lay blame at the feet of conservative Christians who teach that homosexual conduct is wrong, as well as pro-family groups such as Family Research Council which oppose elements of the homosexual political agenda, such as same-sex "marriage."

So right away, here comes the "oh, it's not our fault. Just because we teach people to hate doesn't mean we're responsible for their hatred!"

The Christians and pro-family leaders I know are unanimous in believing that no person, especially a child, should be subjected to verbal or physical harassment or violence--whether because of their sexuality, their religious beliefs, or for any other reason. Such bullying violates the Christian's obligation to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, and receives no support from the pro-family political movement.

Except for the verbal harassment they get from the pulpit.

Where bullying has occurred, the blame should be placed on the bullies themselves--not on organizations within society who clearly oppose bullying. I suspect that few, if any, such bullies are people who regularly attend church

Riiiiight. No one who attends church would be hateful towards the gay kids. Also, none of the Klansmen I know would ever be mean to black folks.
Look, I grew up in one of these conservative churches, and I know the contempt in which they hold gay people. And they're not shy about admitting it. They really seem to have this idea that people say to themselves "hmm, I'm evil, but I feel like I could be eviler. What could I do to really show my hatred for God and all that is good. . . I know, I'll be gay!"

Religious faith and a return to traditional family values are more likely to be a solution to the problem of bullying than a cause.

See, if you gays weren't destroying the family, maybe you wouldn't be getting bullied. So really, it's your fault!

However, homosexual activist groups like GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) are exploiting these tragedies to push their agenda of demanding not only tolerance of homosexual individuals, but active affirmation of homosexual conduct and their efforts to redefine the family.

Exploiting these tragedies? Trying to prevent future such tragedies is not exploiting these tragedies, you asshole! How do you see a group of people that are trying to keep young folks from despairing to the point of suicide and think "how can I discredit these people?" What kind of horrible person thinks like that?

There is an abundance of evidence that homosexuals experience higher rates of mental health problems in general, including depression. However, there is no empirical evidence to link this with society's general disapproval of homosexual conduct.

Now I don't know why he included that link, because here is what it links to:

The results of several breakthrough studies are offering new insights on gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. Among the key findings:

• Several studies suggest that gay men, lesbians and bisexuals appear to have higher rates of some mental disorders compared with heterosexuals, although not to the level of a serious pathology. Discrimination may help fuel these higher rates.

• A study found lesbians reported equally strong levels of mental health as their heterosexual sisters and higher self-esteem.

• A new study of gay and lesbian youth finds that they are only slightly more likely than heterosexual youth to attempt suicide, refuting previous research that suggested much higher rates.

So the article he links to actually seems to be saying the opposite of what he is saying.

And it includes this quote from Susan Cochran, PhD, an epidemiologist in the University of California, Los Angeles School of Public Health, who authored or co-authored many of the studies.

"these are certainly not levels of morbidity consistent with models that say homosexuality is inherently pathological." For another, the data simply don't prove either pro- or anti-gay arguments on the subject, whether it's that the inherent biology of homosexuality causes mental illness or that social stigma provokes mental illness in LGB people, she says.

You know, if you're going to lie, you really shouldn't link to a page that shows that you're lying.

Within the homosexual population, such mental health problems are higher among those who "come out of the closet" at an earlier age. Yet GLSEN's approach is to encourage teens to "come out" when younger and younger--thus likely exacerbating the very problem they claim they want to solve.

This time, he doesn't even bother trying to back up this claim with any sort of evidence.

This next paragraph might be the most disgusting:

Some homosexuals may recognize intuitively that their same-sex attractions are abnormal--yet they have been told by the homosexual movement, and their allies in the media and the educational establishment, that they are "born gay" and can never change. This--and not society's disapproval--may create a sense of despair that can lead to suicide.

So, one group of people tell you that you're an affront to God and you have to change a large part of who you are in order to be acceptable. A second group tells you you're fine the way you are, and don't bother trying to change because even if it were a good idea, it doesn't work anyway. And you're going to sit there and tell me it's the second group that causes despair?

The most important thing that Christians can offer to homosexuals is hope--hope that their sins, just like the sins of anyone else, can be forgiven and their lives transformed by the power of Jesus Christ.

Translation: brainwash them into thinking that they can and should pray the gay away. Tell them that being the person that they are is inherently a "sin" and that they need to change into a different person or they'll burn in hell. That's considered hope? Hope because you're going to lie to them and say that this kind of change is possible?

I knew a guy years ago who was trying to do this. He was trying to force himself to be hetero, he dated at least one girl that I know of. And he was miserable. And when he would call my friend "Joe" asking him to come to a gay bar and pick him up because he was too drunk to drive home, some people I knew said he was "just confused." I didn't know this guy very well, he was sort of a friend-of-a-friend or whatever, but I'm pretty sure his family disowned him. He had Christian bumper stickers all over his car and talked a lot about God, but no amount of religion was going to turn him into a breeder. I wish I had been more sure of myself back then. I could have taken him aside and at least tried to give him some support. I don't know where he is now, I don't even remember his name. I barely knew him, as I said. I just hope he's come to grips with himself and embraced his identity.

Anyway, Perkins' disgusting bullshit screed goes on in this vein for a while longer, I can't stand to even look at it. The article is here, if you want to read it. It's not a fun read, but it's a pretty good insight into how these people think. Also, at the end, the Post is kind enough to provide a link to the FRC, in case anyone reading this article would like a second dose of ugly hatred.

It Might be Wise to Stay Out of Concord, NH for a While

Johnathon Irish of Concord, NH is either a member of, or is affiliated with the Oath Keepers.

The Oath Keepers, if you've been fortunate enough to not be aware of them, are a very scary offshoot of the militia movement. What makes them scarier than your average militia group is that their raison d'etre is to organize military personnel, veterans, and law enforcement officers around a promise to resist what they seem to think is incipient totalitarianism.

Well, recently Johnathon Irish and his already-married-to-someone-else fiancee, Stephanie Taylor, had their baby taken away by social workers.

According to John, they took the baby because of his affiliation with oathkeepers, which is totally true except for the "oathkeepers" part.

According to the Concord Monitor:

. . . according to an affidavit provided to Irish by the state Division for Children, Youth and Families, state officials took the child because of Irish's long record of violence and abuse. According to the affidavit, a judge determined that Irish abused Taylor's two other children. She is still married to the father of those children. . .
The affidavit also says that the police in Rochester report a "lengthy history of domestic violence" between Taylor and Irish, and that she accused him of choking and hitting her on more than one occasion. According to the document, Irish failed to complete a domestic violence course as ordered by the state, and that a hearing was held last month to terminate Taylor's parental rights over her two older children.

So, mainly it seems it was the whole domestic violence thing that concerned the State of New Hampshire more so than the oathkeepers thing. But you know, to-ma-to / to-mah-to.

Although, the whole Oathkeepers thing had to be cause for concern as well. Here's what Johnathon Irish's father had to say on the subject:
(via Crooks & Liars)

The reason they are concerned with Oath Keepers is that Johnathon has a fanatical attitude that Oath Keepers is an organization that is planning to overthrow the present government, and bring us back into strict accordance with the Constitution. And Johnathon's feeling on that is he needs to be acquiring weapons to be ready for that overthrow.

So, yeah, being a violent paranoid nut with a lot of guns might not really make you the best choice to be raising a baby.

Irish, 24, said in an interview yesterday that he had never abused his fiancee or her other children. He said he was unemployed and collected disability because he is blind in his left eye from a childhood accident.

"Ah hate thet ther dang ol' guvmint!" he did not add. "Now 'scuze me while ah go cash mah dis'billty check!"

Oh, but the reason you might want to stay out of New Hampshire for a while? This:

Concord

Oath Keepers plans rally

The director of a self-described anti-totalitarian group is urging supporters to rally outside a New Hampshire courthouse this week in support of an Epsom couple whose newborn was taken last week by state social workers.

Oath keepers and courthouses are generally not a good mix:

'Oath Keeper' under arrest after driving to Tennessee to take over courthouse, conduct 'citizens arrests' of public officials

By David Neiwert

A Georgia man has been arrested in Tennessee--authorities say he headed to Madisonville, armed and prepared to take over the courthouse.

Darren Huff stands charged of traveling in interstate commerce with intent to incite a riot and transporting in commerce a firearm in furtherance of a civil disorder.

The FBI says Huff traveled to Tennessee armed with a pistol on his hip and an assault rifle in his truck, intent on carrying out citizen's arrests of 24 federal, state, and local officials, and on seeing that another man did not face trial for trying to do the same.

And these people are freaking serious. Here are some comments from the Oathkeepers website referring to the New Hampshire baby case:

it is an outrageous crime against humanity and we all have to stand up against any of this – peacefully but firm!

UNITEDWESTRIKE

I personally believe that Americas problems with government oppression began when black people were allowed to participate in the process. They have no respect or value for the law or the constitution and are the source of all of our problems.

It is quite apparent that this Country is under tyrannical rule. Yet, here we are day after day, letting the atrocities continue. ILLEGAL ORDERS ARE FOLLOWED EVERY SINGLE DAY AGAINST THE CITIZENRY! Yet nobody comes to their defense.. Many of you here, and you know who you are, are nothing but traitors and hypocrites. Not all of you, but a great majority.

Dear Oathkeepers,

Do not allow this to cause you to shrink from your righteous cause before humanity, there are things you can do to protect yourself.

1- Homebirth.
……there are more childbirth and mother accidents and deaths in the hospital slice and dice procedures that home birth….study it. There are some O.B.’s that work with midwives. Or you can get a licensed midwife who has credentials equal to an O.B. Husbands, and wives, you too can take courses in home birthing. Don’t give your families into the hands of the monsters.

2- Find an O.B. who supports the standing of the oathkeepers and notify all oathkeepers which family doctors can be trusted. Don’t give out information on your pregnancies/ due dates to extended friends or family.

3- If you have older children that are outraged at this rediculous persecution. You MUST give them a chance to speak to the herd out there. Give them a chance to go before the media and tell the herd that their parents are heroes. The media cannot demonize children.

4- Homeschool your kids. Homeschooling alone can make you a target but do it anyway. There are excellent online programs and you can take your children for academic testing to make sure they are ahead of the general public education system.

5- Prepare for an event like this by having some Oathkeepers get their homes preprepared to take in foster care of other oathkeeper children. Find relatives who support you as an oathkeeper and if a child is suddenly and deliberately being taken you can request to the state to have them removed immediately to your relatives home.

***You will find that the gov will do the same thing in the public schools. One day your child won’t come home from school and you will find they were picked up from your public school.

This is the mentality of the "Oathkeepers." And they are made up largely of active duty and retired military and law-enforcement personnel. In other words, guys who have guns and know how to use them. And now they have a cause and "martyr" to rally around. This is not going to end well.

Crazy Candidate of the Day - Joe Miller

Miller vows silence on questions about personal background

SCRUTINY: Candidate complains he's being mistreated by media.

By SEAN COCKERHAM and RICHARD MAUER
Anchorage Daily News

Apparently, there's something in the meth up there in Alaska that makes political figures think that the media should only ask them the questions which they would like to be asked. It's sort of like a batter saying to the pitcher, "well, if you're going to throw sliders, I'm just not going to play. I told you to throw straight fastballs, chest high, and not too fast!"

Republican Senate nominee Joe Miller said Monday he will not answer any more questions about his personal background for the rest of the campaign.

"We've drawn a line in the sand. You can ask me about background, you can ask me about personal issues -- I'm not going to answer," Miller said.

Now, if by "personal issues" he meant, say, his love life, then sure, he would have a valid point. But of course, that's not what he means. It's more about stuff like this from The Alaska Dispatch:

U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller confirmed Monday night that his wife -- once hired to work as a part-time clerk for the same Alaska court in which he was serving as a U.S. magistrate judge -- went on unemployment after she left the job. . .

. . . Miller critics have suggested Miller was forced to fire his wife, calling the couple's working relationship a form of nepotism prohibited by court policies at the time. . .

Miller is running on a self-described constitutional conservative platform, arguing that the nation must return to the principles and powers penned by the founding fathers to save it from bankruptcy. Putting an end to entitlements on a national level and empowering states has been a key message in his campaign.

Still, in recent weeks, Miller -- also an opponent to Social Security and Medicare -- has acknowledged utilizing federal programs, including subsidies, over the years. In the 1990s, he received more than $7,000 in federal farm subsidies for land he owned in Kansas, where he grew up. In 1999, he applied for and was granted a $77,400 state loan to buy 1,000 acres in Delta Junction under a program aimed at promoting the development of Alaska agriculture.

Miller and his campaign have fired back at critics who have called him a hypocrite, saying things like the farm subsidies were long ago and do not reflect on his positions today.

"If you suggest that anybody that has received federal payments is excluded from the dialogue on where we are at today as a federal government, then (that means) nobody can participate," Miller said in an Alaska Dispatch interview last month.

Um, I think I could. But whatever. No, I think what is being suggested is that it's kinda bullshit to suddenly develop an aversion to government money once you're no longer in a position to be receiving it.

So, questions like "how do you square your opposition to federal spending programs with the fact that you and your wife have both been the recipients of monies from these programs?" are apparently totally out of bounds to Miller.

Miller said he has been the victim of "journalistic impropriety."

Which is educated-wingnut for "gotcha journalism."

Miller asserted Monday that "members of the media have gained access to my confidential file, my personnel file from the Fairbanks North Star Borough. It is clear violation of law, the access to that file."

Miller did not offer evidence for his assertion that the media had gained access to his personnel file, or cite the law that had been broken.

Maybe Sarah can get the "department of laws" to look into it.

"We are calling upon all responsible members of the media to focus on the issues, the legitimate issues and not repeat basically the lies and innuendos, not repeat the clear violations of law, but to focus on the issues at hand. Now I'll admit, and I've said this before, I'm a man of flaws, there's no question about it. You know, I wasn't born with a silver spoon, I haven't been born wealthy," he said.

"Nor was I born with a knack for grammar," he did not add.

But, Okay, you want to look at the issues? Fine. Let's go to the "issues" section of your website:

Issues

Government Spending

I will work to limit Washington to the constitutional powers anticipated by our Founders.

Oh, good thinking. Let's limit the government to only those things whaich were anticipated by a bunch of slave-owners in powdered wigs occupying 13 tiny colonies clinging to the Atlantic seaboard whose very survival was dubious. Surely they could have anticipated the needs of a 21st Century Superpower.

*

Hey, here's an idea. Let's have the healthcare reform debate settled by a group of men who had doctors come to their homes for bloodlettings!

I support the repeal of ObamaCare. First and foremost, there is no Constitutional authority for it.

Oh my God! I was kidding!

I will support reform legislation that is market-based and incentivizes individual responsibility. One major aspect of this reform must include allowing and promoting a system of robust employer and/or self-funded tax-free health savings accounts.

There is no Constitutional authority for Federally mandated Healthcare reform! There is, however the "Health savings account" provision of Article III. That's totally in the Constitution! As my law-school professors used to say, "the Constitution will only allow the government to do the stuff that we want, not stuff the other guys want!"

I strongly oppose the unconstitutional Cap and Trade legislation. The science supporting manmade climate change is inconclusive.

No. It isn't. Just because you don't like the conclusion doesn't make the science bad. I'm not crazy about gravity, but that doesn't mean Newton was wrong.

Really, your "issues" page is pretty light on actual um, issues. Basically, you're against Healthcare reform, (although also for healthcare reform, just a different healthcare reform), against cap-and-trade, pro-life, pro-family, then you add this to sort of pad it out:

A Time for True Change

Ronald Reagan once said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you've got.” We have little time to restore constitutional limits on federal power. I will be a catalyst to move those in Congress to make the tough, principled decisions needed to bring Washington back to the limited role anticipated by our Founders. We must act now.

Wow, now that's what I call vague! "I will make those tough, principled decisions, you know, those unspecified decisions that I will make in a principled way. Oh, they will be tough, I'm sure, but they will definitely be decisions of some kind, and I will toughly make them. Oh, and also, Ronald Reagan!"

It seems odd that your website doesn't mention that you'd like to abolish the minimum wage, privatize Social Security and phase out Medicare. Seems like you had plenty of room. Room that you filled with, for instance this comical sentence:

Prior to the Democrats’ takeover of the Congress and the White House in 2008, the Republicans ushered in the largest expansion of federal spending since the hay days [sic] of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society in the 1960s.

Yeah. I think you mean "heyday" Hay Days is a snowmobile festival in Minnesota. (really) And no matter what Sarah tells you, they are called "Snowmobiles" not "Snow Machines" Snow Machines are what ski resorts use to make artificial snow when there isn't enough actual snow. Not that any of that is relevant, but I'm just sick of that airhead acting like Alaska is the only place on the planet with fucking snow, so Alaskans get to decide what to call snow-related things. Fuck you, snowbilly! Words mean things. You don't get to change the definition of words just because you think it's cute.

*if you are the person from whom I stole this joke, leave me a note if you want me to take it down or credit you. Tell me where it was first published, so I know you're really him or her.

The American Family Association Continues to be Completely Psychotic

Back to AFA

Blog Home

SEARCH

Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing
in letting house burn to the ground

Honestly, is there even any reason to read this crap past that headline?

Oh, what the hell. . .

A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TN fire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the ground because the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fire protection.

The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandson accidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish the flames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority or responsibility to do so.

No moral responsibility? A man's house is burning down, you are professionally trained firefighters with firefighting equipment at hand, and you have no moral responsibility to put out the flames?

It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, it likely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liability insurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into a legally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate” Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreement and put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimited risk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebody violate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the same time.

Yeah, if there's one thing that Jesus used to talk about a lot, it's the sanctity of a legal contract!

The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The right thing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be no difference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christian thing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing to do.

So does that apply to slavery?

(Col 3:22 - "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters")
(Eph 6:5 - "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling)

Or Marital rape?

(1Cor 7:4 - "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.")

Or genocide?

(1Samuel 15:2-3 - " Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant")
(Joshua 6:21 - "They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.")

If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christian thing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused about Christianity, or both.

Yeah, there's no "If" here. You are definitely confused about both things.

In this case, critics of the fire department are confused both about right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they have fallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only about softer virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscular Christian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.

Yeah, it's not about those girly virtues like "Compassion." Jesus didn't care about compassion!

"He was moved with compassion."—Matthew 9:36.

Matthew 20:31: "Two blind men sat by the wayside begging, and when they heard that Jesus passed by, they said, 'O Lord, thou Son of David, have mercy on us.'. . . so Jesus had compassion on them, touched their eyes, and immediately they received sight.

but Christ was moved with compassion, -- Mark 5:19

and when Jesus saw the disconsolate mother, he was moved with compassion, and he restored her son. -- Luke 7:13

When he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them and cured their sick.’ (Matthew 14:14).

The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must accept individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to the flesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing and reaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.

Is it just me, or does that not even make sense? What does "sowing to the flesh" and "reaping corruption" have to do with one's house burning down?

The same folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailing out Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out Wall Street firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companies for making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?

Seriously? What's the difference between preventing someone's house from burning down and bailing out multi-billion dollar corporations? Yeah, I guess it's pretty much the same thing, like what's the difference between children skipping down the street and soldiers marching along a parade route? It's all the same thing. They're both in motion. They're both propelled by legs. Same thing.

Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 on something other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice to accept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christian claim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himself made.

True. Except that he didn't actually make a decision, he just forgot to pay, and he didn't appeal to any moral or ethical claim on the fire department, he offered to pay them any amount of money to put the fire out, but other than that, yeah. Good point!

Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a wedding feast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had the chance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil, and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. The bridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying “Truly, I say to you, I do not know you” (Matthew 25:13).

Right. Also, there was the story of the ten lepers. I don't remember the details, but it ends with Jesus healing them and not asking for any payment. But I guess the story about lamp oil is way more relevant here.

The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves as accusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless.

No, that's you doing that. That's you saying that Jesus was so cold and heartless that he would stand idly by while a family's home burned to the ground saying "dude, that's what you get for not paying your bills! No house for you, jerk!" The critics of South Fulton aren't weighing in either way on Christ's personality.

Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorry for Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and do what I could to help him in his time of need.

But since he's not my friend, fuck him! That's the moral of the Good Samaritan story, right?

let me see if i can remember a few more Bible stories. Let's see, there was one with a blind man. . . . .
And they brought unto Jesus a blind man, that he might heal him. And his disciples asked, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?"
And Jesus said unto them, "It may have been him, it may have been his parents, but it darn sure wasn't me, so I don't see why I should be responsible for healing him." And lo, Jesus did go back home to watch TV, leaving his disciples to apologize to the blind man."Sorry, that's just how he is. He can be a real jerk sometimes," said Saint Peter.

And another day, the people brought to Jesus their sick and lame that they might be healed. And Jesus said unto them "hold thine horses. Saint John, check the tabernacle registry to see who amongst them has paid his deductible." And only then did Jesus heal those who had paid in advance.

One more.

And Jesus said unto his disciples "I go before you unto Heaven to prepare a place for you there, so be sure to book in advance, because if thou waitest until the last minute, the prices are going to go up. Yea, I say unto thee, book online, for it is convenient and I hate to make reservations over the phone. For verily, it is a pain, and hey, I'm trying to run a business here!"

And in case anyone doesn't completely understand how big a jerk the AFA thinks Jesus would be, Bryan Fischer issued a clarification (here, is you're interested) Here's the key line from the new piece of crap column:

What would Jesus do? That’s easy. He’d tell Mr. Cranick, “Man up, accept full and total responsibility, and don’t blame anybody but yourself for what happened. That’s the Christian thing to do. And next time, Gene, pay the 75 bucks, all right?”

Man up? Man up? So, not only is this version of Jesus a cold, heartless bastard, he's also a douchey frat boy? And this is the guy you worship, huh?