Well this is a charming example of Christ’s generous and unyielding love:

The newest far-right craze is an anti-Obama slogan that is making its way onto t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, and even teddy bears: “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8,” which reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.” The meme is also taking off on Twitter, with conservatives calling it “hilarious.” Commentators have noted that it’s unclear whether the intent is to hope for an end to Obama’s time in office — or an end to his life. But a look at the lines in the rest of the psalm hint at the latter:

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor.
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.

Diana Butler Bass at Beliefnet explains that Psalm 109 is one of the “imprecatory” prayers, “a lament in the form of petition to destroy one’s enemies.” While perhaps intended to be a joke, she notes that the psalm actually “entreats God to destroy the president”:
It is the personal prayer of an individual, someone who has been dealt an injustice by another–and usually more powerful–person. The words of Psalm 109 are those of deep agony, the longings of a victim for retribution and justice. This psalm is considered one of the most difficult of all the psalms–full of violent images of vengeance and death.
No matter how many times I hear insane, stupid shit like this, I still wonder to myself: “How in the world do these hateful, cruel spiteful people seriously think that they are doing what Jesus Christ would want them to do?”

Is there really just absolutely no filter for these people?

Are they so impregnably ignorant* that they have never seriously pondered whether the loving and benevolent Jesus they believe in would look upon them and their gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes and say “My child, although thou art made in the image of my Father, verily I see in thine heart the essence of a serious asshole”?

Jesus, save me from your followers. Soon please.

* Ooh, I like that phrase. It’s mine, bitches! © 2009 Metavirus!

  1. Gherald says:

    I began writing a post about this a couple days ago, but…

    "Funny or sinister?" asks The Christian Science Monitor

    The slogan comes at a time of heightened concern about antigovernment anger. Earlier this year, the president’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, said that Tea Parties could lead to something unhealthy. In September, authorities shut down a poll on Facebook asking if President Obama should be killed.

    Still, that doesn’t push the Psalms citation into the realm of hate speech, says Chris Hansen, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

    The use of Psalm 109:8 is ambiguous as to whether its users are calling for the President to serve “only one term, or less than one term,” he says.

    Deborah Lauter, director of civil rights at the Anti-Defamation League agrees that the bumper sticker falls within acceptable political discourse.

    For it to be considered hate speech, it “would advocate actual violence or cite scripture that was more clear in its message.”

    But that doesn’t mean that it’s completely innocent.

    “Are we concerned about real hostility towards [President Obama]? Absolutely,” says Ms. Lauter. “Is this a part of that movement? It may be, but in terms of this message itself, we would not criticize it.”

    “The problem is you don’t know if people who are donning that message in a shirt or on a bumper sticker are fully aware of the quote or what follows. Obviously that message makes the ambiguity disappear. If they’re just referring to him being out of office, that’s one thing. If they’re referring to him being dead, that’s so offensive. It’s protected speech, but it’s clearly offensive.”

    It doesn't seem like any significant number of the Christians quoting verse eight are actually wishing for Obama's death.

    I do however think that Psalm 109 is a pretty good illustration of why the Bible shouldn't be taken seriously for moral guidance.

    • schu says:

      if they are then they are not Christians, and they are not following the ways of Christ.

    • Metavirus says:

      Yeah, because the actual words of the psalm are soooo unclear:

      "Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
      Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
      Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places."

      Granted, most Christians are ignorant and have no idea what the Psalms they toss around really mean. But the references to making Sasha and Malia fatherless, and Michelle a widow, are pretty damn clear. "God, please kill this bad man"

      • Gherald says:

        I said those quoting verse eight. You bolded nine.

        The vast majority of those quoting eight seem to be either unaware or uninterested in the rest of the Psalm, so it is unfair of you to say they are praying for God to strike Obama dead.

        • Metavirus says:

          i don't think its unfair at all, none of us really know what they're really praying for but there are assuredly millions of crazy christianists out there, including some who push this psalm, who seriously would love to see God smite Obama until he is dead, dead, dead. some are praying for him to simply leave office (which really means impeachment, etc.), some are praying for divine death intervention

    • Metavirus says:

      and I find the bit in there about hate speech a bit nefarious. even if it was hate speech (which its not), the government has no authority to punish it (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech” target=”_blank”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech ). hate speech is protected speech, unless it rises to the level of incitement or an imminent threat. i think it's a bit too-cute-by-half for the article to not clarify that -- after all, there are lots of misinformed people that think that the big bad gubmint can come after you for that -- and staying silent conveys the impression that that might actually be a possibility. remember the nonsense about "policing thought" in the hate crimes debate? how republicans said the gubmint could come after you for thinking or saying bad things about gay people? Nope, it's just a sentencing enhancer for actual crimes (e.g. murder, battery) that are committed with a clear motivation to select and victimize the victim based on a category such as religion (see the story about the soldier who smashed greek priest's head with a tire iron because he thought he was a muslim terrorist) race or gayness

      • Gherald says:

        The organizations quoted are concerned with classifying hate speech regardless of its legality.

        The problem with laws against hate crimes is that they prescribe different punishments for acts that are equally willful depending the perpetrator's motivation. That is policing thought.

        • Metavirus says:

          oh fuff, hate crimes are going to be something we're never going to agree on. it's not policing thought, it's enhancing sentences based on motivation/intent. It's the same thing with murder. Some guy runs over your child in front of you and you fly into a rage and kill him? Not first degree murder (heat of passion). Hate your wife and plan for weeks how to kill her then do it? That's murder one (premediated)

          • Gherald says:

            …which is why I qualified it with "equally willful".

            Degrees of murder exist to punish the more accidental / heat of passion crimes less harshly. They give people a break for being fallible humans temporarily not paying enough attention or not being in their right mind. Essentially we don't want to give someone life for a temporary lapse.

            Hate crimes, meanwhile, have no temporary component. Murdering someone for being part of a despised minority is no more or less a willful act than murdering for gain or out of sadism. There is no cause for policing those thoughts and applying different rules. It's sheer political pandering to minority groups because of their political clout (whereas other types of victims are more random and don't have the same political significance).

            • Metavirus says:

              There are all sorts of sentence enhancements that turn on the motivation/intent of the perpetrator. For instance, many criminal codes provide for an enhanced sentence if a felony was committed with a "sexual motivation". Another example in federal law is the terrorism sentence enhancement that applies if the offense "involved, or was intended to promote, a federal crime of terrorism*" <a href="http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/3a1_4.htm” target=”_blank”>http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/3a1_4.htm

              So I guess we need to do away with those too? Because they gauge sentencing based on the person's motive/intent behind committing a crime?

              i.e. Whoever, involving conduct transcending national boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection (b)—
              (A) kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United States; or
              (B) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States; <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_0…” target=”_blank”>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_0…

              • Gherald says:

                Eh? Sex crimes and terrorism are obviously things that merit punishment (even if plots are foiled--they're just like attempted murder in that respect)

                Hating minorities, by contrast, is not a crime, and should never be a crime. Thus extra punishment for crimes based on those hatreds is meritless thought policing, and exists for no reason other than political pandering.

  2. schu says:

    Shame that they cannot sell little bears, bumper stickers, and tee-shirts with passages from the New Testament praying for the far right to become actual Christians and quite using the Lord's words in a heathens way.

  3. Metavirus says:

    What I noted is that everyday felonies (e.g. battery, arson) (that are ALREADY crimes), if committed with a sexual motivation or terrorist intent, can have the SENTENCE enhanced because of the motivation/intent of the perp.  That's punishing thought right?

    • Gherald says:

      And the distinction I draw is that those things would also be separate criminal acts. We have laws against sex crimes, and we have laws against terrorism—so when these intents combined with things that already crimes, it's natural for the sentence to be greater.

      We don't have laws against hatred of minorities, and there is no cause for such hatred to increase the sentence of other crimes.

      • Metavirus says:

        what, having a "sexual motivation" is illegal in its own right? without being connected to a crime?

        having or saying terroristic thoughts or intent should be illegal in its own right? without tying it to a criminal act?

        you see, this is where the conversation inevitably breaks down into nonsense (no disrespect) in conversations with libertarians, because they're so set in their instinctual dislike for hate crimes, that they fail to acknowledge the logical inconsistency in their position when it comes to all sorts of sentence enhancers in the criminal law that gives more time to perpetrators of felonies if done with certain motivations or intentions (that ARE NOT illegal all by themselves)

        • Gherald says:

          As I explained to LG in a chat, we need to distinguish between intent and motivation. Intent to terrorize is grounds for greater punishment, as is intent to sexually coerce.

          Hatred is not an intent, it's a motivation. Punishing people for the motivation of their actions is thought policing.

          Hatred and terrorism may coincide, but they don't have to. One can hate without terrorizing, and one can terrorize without hating.

          Take a concrete example: Publicly lynching a black man to "teach those niggers a lesson". This might well be a hate crime (motivation) and clearly has the intent to spread terror (intent). Punishment for the intent is appropriate--just as we punish people for other intents like attempted murder. Punishment for the hatred motivation, however, would be thought policing.

          Take another example: torturing and mutilating someone and then dumping the body. Whether the act was motivated by hatred or sadism does not matter--it's the same crime and should have the same penalty.

          Thus the category of "hate crimes" is or ought to be legally worthless.

          • Metavirus says:

            darn, you post when you know i'm busy. :) be careful going down that motivation vs intent road. the distinction is paper thin and does not hold up to a wisp of analysis. but i'm busy! ;-)

  4. DB says:

    I am more shocked that they have decided to use their Holy book for such attacks. One would think they would have more respect for their own scripture. Shows how much faith these band wagoners truly have.

    PS…sorry I've been off the blogs for so long, I just moved from Japan to Libya and had a baby in the mean time, so life has been hectic! I'll make sure to keep dropping in now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Authors