What the ... nice man?!?!?

A friend shared a photo on Facebook today that made me laugh.

Then I saw the last comment someone had made and laughed even harder.

Yes, some tard just felt they had to post and criticize the picture. If I can refrain from commenting in the thread about the fucktardery of the last comment they should have been able to hold back.

The comment made me want to ask if this person knew the Pope personally or if they were just basing their view on the fact he is the Pope. I am pretty sure it is the latter. Just as I am sure there are a lot of people who believe the Benedict is NOT a nice man ... like 200 or more blind kids who were abused by a priest that the then cardinal Ratzinger helped protect. Protects child abusers. Yeah, such a nice man.

What the ... religious intolerance 2?!?!?!?

As more comes out about the shenanigans of William Swinimer the idea of him being the victim of religious intolerance becomes more laughable.

I remember listening to a talk radio show the week the story first broke. Callers went on and on about how horrible it was that Christianity was under attack. All the while the underlying story of what led up to it was not being told. It wouldn't start coming out until the day of tolerance discussions at the school. When the media actually started doing their job and looking into the substance and not just reporting the flash.

William Swinimer is an intolerant religious bully. He is supported in this by his father and his pastor. The t-shirt was just the latest in problems with him. He would proselytize in the hallway of the school. Anyone who didn't agree with HIS view of Christianity was a target. Yet some people whine about HIS freedom of religion or expression?!?!? They claim HE is the target of intolerance just because he is Christian?!?!?!?

I think the Principal made a HUGE mistake doing something because of the t-shirt. Why she picked that as the issue worth suspending Willy over I don't know. It doesn't matter that she said it was because he ignored what the Principal said. All it looks like is because he wore that shirt. She should have taken a stand before that over his behaviour. In fact, I would go as far to say that the next time Willy acts out, and he will Westboroesque Christians like him always do, the Principal should take a page out of his father James' book.

James Swinimer decided that his son and daughter would not attend school the day they held the discussions on tolerance. His reasoning was this;

“He will not attend this school unless they are having readin’, writin’ and ’rithmetic, good old-fashioned academics. When they’re having forums, when they’re having other extracurricular activities, he will not attend that school.


“The taxpayer is paying for him to learn his academics as well as the other students, and I am not standing for any of this stuff.”

Well said Mr. Swinimer! The next time your son starts proselytizing the Principal should quote you and suspend him. After all his stuff doesn't fall into the category of readin', writin', and 'rithmetic or any other kind of academic subject that belongs in a school.

What the ... religious intolerance?

I read an article in The Chronicle Herald on the weekend called "T-shirt tempest distracting". It irked me a bit. Enough that I decided to write about it.

Why did it irk me? The author, Monica Graham, came off as disingenuous. She ignored reality and tried to make it all about Christians being persecuted.


"Swinimer, a student at Forest Heights Community School in Chester Grant, was punished for repeatedly wearing the shirt to school after he was told to stop. It was a courageous act of defiance on the part of an apparently shy young man who felt his faith was under attack."

Swinimer is shy? What a crock of shit. He has been a source of aggravation for other students at his school for proselytizing. He would preach at them and tell them they would burn in hell if they didn't believe what he believes.

Monica is being VERY disingenuous here. Either that or she is a moron. Her article was written weeks after the incident started. Weeks after more information about the "censorship" came out. 


As one student told reporters;

“It’s ridiculous. It should be a normal school day, but no one can be able to focus today,” he said. 


This thing never was about a shirt. He’s telling kids they’ll burn in hell if they don’t confess themselves to Jesus. He’s said that.”

So, who was under attack? Swinimer or anyone who didn't agree with him? It sounds like Swinimer was the one doing the attacking.


Graham wrote;

"It’s unclear if anyone was truly offended, or if there was simply a concern that someone might be offended. Who knows?"

Really? Unclear? Yet it was reported that at least one student HAD complained about the t-shirt. No to mention the complaints about Swinimer's proselytizing. Seems clear to me that someone felt offended. Whether you or I think it was offensive, it did bother someone. And it came out, before Graham wrote her piece, that Swinimer has harassed other students with HIS intolerance. It looks pretty clear to me.

At the time Graham wrote this there was something else she ignored. The school was having a tolerance discussion. A day was devoted to it. There were speakers and students were encouraged to participate. The father, John Swinimer, REFUSED to allow his children to attend any discussion about TOLERANCE.

It seems to me that Graham missed the boat on this one. The father, the way his son proselytizes, and how they are actively intolerant of others is more of the issue than censorship by the school.


It is kind of funny that Graham started off the article with the statement ...

"Much ink has been spent (dare I say, wasted?) on the case of William Swinimer and his bright yellow T-shirt."

... and she just went on to waste more.

Jesusween?

I was watching The Colbert Report and he talked about Jesusween. It sounded so screwed up that I knew it had to be real ... and it is. Stephen Colbert referred to it as part of the War on Halloween.

Some Christers decided to try and create a "Godly alternative" to Halloween. Proponents of Jesusween are supposed to hand out Bibles and "Christian" gifts. They actually believe that it will become the most successful Christian outreach day. Odds are it will just end up creating the most successful egg sales day of the year. Some asshole put a crucifix in your treat bag? Egg the motherfucker!

Bloody whackjobs have to try and ruin everything. Isn't it bad enough that a lot of "Christian" holidays ripped off those of other religions in a move to assimilate them and gain more converts? Now they have to ruin candy day for kids? You would think followers of the ultimate zombie would embrace Halloween and not try and destroy it.