Hilarity: Bible Study With Bush

0 comments suggest edit

Bush PraysSaw this going around the web. Classic!

Dear President Bush, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s law. I have learned a great deal from you and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them:

​1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

​2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

​3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

​4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

​5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

​6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there “degrees” of abomination?

​7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

​8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

​9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

​10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)? Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Found a typo or error? Suggest an edit! If accepted, your contribution is listed automatically here.



33 responses

  1. Avatar for Jon Galloway
    Jon Galloway October 15th, 2004

    Okay, I'll bite...

    Assuming GWB is a Protestant Christian rather than a follower of Judaism, none of these things really apply here. That's why you don't see Baptists saccrificing bulls and what not. These are all quotes from Judaic law, which was (according to common Protestant teaching) fulfilled by the New Testament of the Bible. You know, all that Jesus stuff:

    Galatians 2:16

    ...know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

  2. Avatar for Haacked
    Haacked October 15th, 2004

    So you're saying the 10 commandmants don't apply any more?

    Nor the judaic laws against homosexuality?

  3. Avatar for Jon Galloway
    Jon Galloway October 16th, 2004

    Phil -

    First, I don't believe that your point in posting this article was to get drawn into a dialog / argument with a religious nutcase. I don't believe that was the intention of the person who originally wrote it, either. I think both of you were expressing frustration with the intolerant, hypocritical religious right.

    I completely agree with you on that. I'm fed up with religious people trying to impose their morals on others.

    I'll reply to your questions with my personal beliefs. Since this is a humor post and my comments are way off topic, feel free to delete both my comments if you'd like.

    1. The entire Bible tells a story. Just as one sentence out of context may not convey the whole meaning, the first half of the story without the second doesn't make sense. The Old Testament is like the first half of a cliffhanger.

    2. The requirements of the Old Testament law were fulfilled by the New Testament. In some ways, the requirements and enforcers of the Old Testament law are the villains of the New Testament story.

    3. The stringent legalistic requirements of the Old Testament law were replaced by something a lot more difficult to follow (e.g. love your enemies, turn the other cheek, etc.). The New Testament law, in a nutshell, requires us to love others more than ourselves. No one honestly wants to do that, so we try to change the subject back to moralism.

    4. Jesus lived a perfect life and died to fulfil the requirements of the law. He wasn't an example, he was _the_ sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

    5. Most modern religious people selectively use portions of the Bible to force others to adhere to their religious moralism rather than focus on following the hard laws themselves.

    6. Jesus didn't waste much time condemning immoral people. He spent most of his time attacking the heartless, moralistic, religious leadership of the time. He wasn't killed for telling people to try harder when it comes to following the rules, he was killed by the religious rulers for attacking religion.

    7. Religious people throughout history do their best to bend Jesus' message into a moralistic set of rules they can use to control others and justify their own actions. This in no way tarnishes or changes the original message.

    It would be ridiculous of me to assume I've got this stuff all figured out. The above is where I'm personally at right now. I know that a spirituality that that focuses on treating others with love and respect really resonates with me. I think it might be a little more welcome in the world than more moralistic hypocracy.

    Again, though, I'm assuming you probably didn't post this because you wanted to discuss spirituality; you wanted to criticize the moralism that seeks to impose empty legalism on a country that's outgrown it years ago. I'm completely with you on that.

    Two references on the beliefs I expressed above:

    http://shrinkster.com/1k1 - Brief discussion on Old Testament law in the New Testament

    http://shrinkster.com/1k2 - The book of Galatians (<3100 words )

    BTW, thanks for running such a great blog. I read and enjoy it daily.

  4. Avatar for Haacked
    Haacked October 16th, 2004

    You're right about not wanting to get into a spirituality discussion. Those discussions generally run in circles like this (paraphrased):

    "Believe in the Bible"






    Nobody is going to convince anyone else to switch sides. Belief (or lack thereof) comes from within. It didn't take someone to convince me to give up my belief, it came from an epiphany and serious study.

    Though once in a while I like to poke a few ribs. I've posted something like this before:



    However, I was surprised that you pounced on this one before my little brother did. He's got a pretty good grasp of the Bible. He's in England saving the British right now. Believe me, I have a pretty good understanding of theology and the Bible, though I no longer subscribe to it in any way. That's a loooong story.

    And you're right. I don't think faith based initiatives and gay amendments have any place in our government. The obvious problem is which faith? As the list points out, why not choose to base our laws on the Torah?

    At the same time, I don't have a problem with public figures expressing their faith. It's a part of who they are. But imposing it on others, that's where the line needs to drawn.

    In any case, most of my close friends are true believers and have a similar philosophy to yours. I appreciate the open mindedness and tolerance. Too bad that you're the minority (in my view) when it comes to Republicans. ;)

    And thanks for the kind words about the blog. I hope to keep it as a good read.

  5. Avatar for Dewayne and Shadow his Webdog
    Dewayne and Shadow his Webdog October 16th, 2004

    One of the issues that I have with people who quote the bible is when they only pull out a tiny portion of it to prove their point and leave the rest of the book out of the discussion. The

  6. Avatar for Thomas Wagner
    Thomas Wagner October 17th, 2004

    Phil - I know its hard to believe but yes you are correct. The ten commandments do not apply anymore. It may sound crazy to anyone other than theologians - and even there you may get into some debates about it. But really, they have been superceded by Jesus' teachings, which are really much much harder to follow. Can you imagine "loving thy enemeny as thyself" - and he wasn't kidding. He meant it. So tell me whats easier - not killing your enemy or loving him as you love yourself.

    I really got a big kick out of the post and I am a Christian. Still it was hilarious to me. I think I had heard a few of these arguments in an installment of West Wing - when Aaron Sorkin was still writing the show. What a talent that guy had

  7. Avatar for Jeremy C. Wright
    Jeremy C. Wright October 17th, 2004

    Agreed, legalistically the ten commandments don't apply. But, really, if you were loving your neighbour more than yourself would you:

    1. Steal from him

    2. Sleep with his wife

    3. Kill him


    Probably not ;-)

  8. Avatar for haacked@yahoo.com (Haacked)
    haacked@yahoo.com (Haacked) October 17th, 2004

    Well if I was loving his wife more than myself I might. ;)

  9. Avatar for Mark Atkins
    Mark Atkins October 18th, 2004

    What does this have to do with Bush?

  10. Avatar for Haacked
    Haacked October 18th, 2004

    Thomas, actually I do understand that from a theological perspective. Knowing that, it makes me wonder why for example there's such a push to have the 10 commandmants up in a court house by right wing bible belters.

    This post is a commentary on what happens when you try to push faith based initiatives into law.

  11. Avatar for Thomas Wagner
    Thomas Wagner October 18th, 2004

    The seperation of church and state is a tough one. Remember, I grew up in Germany so I have a different perspective on religion. Somehow I cant help but to think it has something to do with fear. I'm not nearly the theologian that you need to answer that question but I have learned one thing: people either act out of a basis of love or a basis of fear. So if you have some very conservative folks advocating the erection of these plaques its probably because they are afraid. America is a strange country sometimes. But there is no place like it in the world and that makes it very special (faults and all) .

  12. Avatar for Jesus H. Christ
    Jesus H. Christ October 18th, 2004

    Fellas, You don't need a theologian to answer these challenging questions of faith and state...

    You do however need an eighth of the best chronic you can find

    and a blank wall to stare at. It will then be all too clear...

    Seriously, smoke a bowl tonight. Do this in rememberence of me!

    Holla at ya lord!!!!!

  13. Avatar for Jackson
    Jackson January 2nd, 2005

    Any claims that quoting a section of a text 'out of context' or 'without reference to the whole story' makes said claims wrong is bizarre. It may be a stretch, but in the end that just means I have to quote the whole bible in order to make any argument doesn't it? I mean really the appropriate thing would be an awareness of what else is said in a passage or paragraph. Not that I know anything about the Bible. But then again to quote a local comedian, I'm Jewish and I love the first episode but I wouldn't touch the sequel.

  14. Avatar for John Rebelsky
    John Rebelsky March 6th, 2005

    "Whosoever does wrong, shall pay for the wrong they have done, and

    there is no respect of persons."

    We dare not call evil good, or call good evil.

  15. Avatar for Meg
    Meg March 17th, 2005

    LOVE it!!! This is a great way to show ppl how freakin wrong bush is

  16. Avatar for rany
    rany April 7th, 2005

    how wrong he is? because hes christian? since when did he make decisions according to God? hes all out for himself and his family

  17. Avatar for uche
    uche April 10th, 2005

    no one should impose their beliefs on anyone and that means both the pro gay and far right proponents.

    two men/women living together should not be called marriage, although it could be called some thing else and be a legal relationship if those involved agree on that.

    I personally dont believe it proper and natural, but each person has to come to his own convictions.

  18. Avatar for Yehonatan
    Yehonatan April 17th, 2005

    Most of the laws in the Old Testament were done away with when Jesus took us out from under the Law and brought us under Grace. However, certain laws were in place for more than just guiding daily living. Some laws existed because breaking them was sin. The ten commandments are among those. Jesus spoke about the specifics of how different laws apply in this day. Homosexuality, though Jesus does not address it, is addressed by Paul in a letter to the Romans. The ban of homosexuality is an excellent example of a law that was more than law. It is an abomination to God. It is contrary to His very being. God created Man male and female. He set it up thus: a man should leave his parents, and a woman hers, to be joined together as one. God did not intend for two men, or two women, to try to bond in such a way. We live under Grace, not the Law, but sin is still sin.

  19. Avatar for nywo_7729
    nywo_7729 April 23rd, 2005

    my indication show that these are the members http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen of the the bible of the far righ that mcveigh and terry nicholes talk about in te oklahoma city bombing and much more .nynwo_7729@msn.com (tips)

  20. Avatar for Laura
    Laura April 29th, 2005

    I've come across the original letter before and think it's profound, not only about gay marriages (which i fully support- After all, people of the early 1900's were known for suppressing black rights- do we want to be known for suppressing the rights of gay people?) but against the radicals who (quite wrongly) uphold that inter-racial relationships are sinful. I think many people need to read this letter- I'm not saying you should neccessarily agree with everything it's implying but hey, once a mind is expanded, it never goes back to the original size. Peace. ~*Laura

  21. Avatar for yo mama's lover
    yo mama's lover May 1st, 2005

    boo hoo hoo. george w is president and i can't get over it. boo hoo

  22. Avatar for New Links
    New Links May 2nd, 2005

    <p>Ever thought that the likes of Bush are be a bit selective about which bits they quote from the bible?</p>
    <p>If we just take out the best bits of the Bible then we can have <a href="http://haacked.com/archive/...">all sorts of fun</a>

  23. Avatar for god
    god May 3rd, 2005

    Religion sucks and so does Bush!

  24. Avatar for Jer
    Jer May 8th, 2005

    You are all right. According to the Bible, whether you are believing in only the Old Testament or believing that the New Testament superceded and voided that which was said in the Old Testament, homosexuality is not allowed. Of course, if you are going by the Old Testament it is the homosexual act which is not allowed, and I am guessing that by the New Testament it is thought as well, but that is besides the point.

    The point of the matter is simply that we do not live in Vatican City, we do not live in Davidic Israel, we do not live an a theological society. The point of the government is not to decide what and what not is G-d's law. That is the job of the holy men of the religious practice that you happen to follow. The United States is not a religious entity and while the country is mostly populated by Christians, the country is not ruled by Christianity. If it were, and Chrisitians began to force their laws upon the rest of the society, we are in violating of the First Amendment, freedom of religion.

    I hope you all realize the implications of this. You see all the women being oppressed in Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim run countries? It has nothing to do with the fact that the countries are not democratic. It has to do with the fact that they are run by laws that are based off of the Koran. And you know what, don't start up by saying that the Koran is wrong (I know it is spelled with a Qu, but I don't know its exact spelling. I apologize to any muslim readers if I am offending, I am trying to make a point. Please take no offense) really has nothing to do with that fact. It is just as valid a belief as any other religion. So what is to make the difference then between our country and the countries that Bush is so fervently trying to oppose?

    Anywho. The point of the article, I imagine, is to show Bush's hypocracy in the religious sense. I found it quite amusing. But if you are going to argue against an article, CLEARLY written only as a humor piece, then consider the above. Maybe he is not being hypocratic in that place, but in another.

    But we'd better get used to it. 3.75 more years. Here's to hoping we don't start adopting all the laws of the Puritans.


  25. Avatar for Dave S
    Dave S May 24th, 2005

    Great article

  26. Avatar for ~me
    ~me May 25th, 2005

    to start with, way to copy someone elses work. you get my applause for taking someone elses work and posting it here. this article has been around since about 2000? it was originally written about Dr. Laura. she said once that homo-sexuality was an abomination and that they should be treated as such. so someone wrote this letter to her.

    with that said... let me sum up christianity...

    An anonymous couple on a mission from Hank approach the home of a stranger and ring the doorbell........

    John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

    Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's @ss with us."

    Stan: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His @ss?"

    John: "If you kiss Hank's @ss, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the sh*t out of you."

    Stan: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shakedown?"

    John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss his @ss."

    Stan: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

    Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the @ss?"

    Stan: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

    John: "Then come kiss Hank's @ss with us."

    Stan: "Do you kiss Hank's @ss often?"

    Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

    Stan: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

    John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

    Stan: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

    Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the sh*t out of you."

    Stan: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's @ss, left town, and got the million dollars?"

    John: "My mother kissed Hank's @ss for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

    Stan: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

    John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

    Stan: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

    Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. For instance, maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

    Stan: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

    John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

    Stan: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

    John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's @ss, He'll kick the sh*t of you."

    Stan: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from him..."

    Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

    Stan: "Then how do you kiss His @ss?"

    John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His @ss. Other times we kiss Karl's @ss, and he passes it on."

    Stan: "Who's Karl?"

    Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about Hank. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

    Stan: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His @ss, and that Hank would reward you?"

    John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

    From the desk of Karl

    1) Kiss Hank's @ss and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.

    2) Use alcohol in moderation.

    3) Kick the sh*t out of people who aren't like you.

    4) Eat right.

    5) Hank dictated this list Himself.

    6) The moon is made of green cheese.

    7) Everything Hank says is right.

    8) Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.

    9) Don't use alcohol.

    10) Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.

    11) Kiss Hank's @ss or He'll kick the sh*t out of you.

    Stan: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

    Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

    Stan: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

    John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

    Stan: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

    Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

    Stan: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the sh*t out of people just because they're different?"

    Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

    Stan: "How do you figure that?"

    Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

    Stan: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

    John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

    Stan: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

    John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

    Stan: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

    Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

    Stan: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

    John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

    Stan: "We do?"

    Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."

    Stan: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

    John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

    Stan: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

    Mary: She blushes.

    John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

    Stan: "What if I don't have a bun?"

    John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

    Stan: "No relish? No Mustard?"

    Mary: She looks positively stricken.

    John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

    Stan: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

    Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

    John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

    Stan: "It's good! I eat it all the time." Mary faints.

    John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the sh*t out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's @ss for you, you bunless, cut-wienered kraut-eater." With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

    (stolen from a friend, who stole it from a website)

    Yea thats pretty much how it is. tell me why, if the laws dont matter anymore, why christians can try to put people down for thier way of thinking? i agree with what jon said here, but the others make absolutely no sense.

    also nice work haacked i like how you make in reference to bush. i hate bush. liar from day one, and the american public is too stupid to see it. hes an idiot too. i think thats what the public likes about him.



  27. Avatar for Roy
    Roy June 1st, 2005

    I usually don't get involved in these type of things, they always seem to turn into a contest of conversion. It is not my intention to change anyone's mind about anything, but as a follower of Christ I do feel a need to point something out.

    Contrary to what has been said before, the law, including the 10 commandments, are still in effect. Saying that Jesus came to fulfill the law as an excuse to abolish it is untrue. Jesus stated several times that he did not come to take away the law. He stated that not a jot or tittle would be removed from the law, (jot being the smallest letter and tittle being the smallest punctuation in the Hebrew alphabet.)

    In comparing the Old and New Testament, and the validity of the laws of Moses it's important to define sin. Sin literally means "to miss the mark", in this case the mark is God's perfection. Breaking the laws was to sin. Jesus took it a step further to include sins of the heart. (i.e. looking on a woman with lust being adultery of the heart).

    Without getting into a long theological debate, the law is good for one thing and one thing only, convicting man of his sin. No one, outside of Christ, can keep all the laws of God. No one can reach God's perfection. After all if you break down the original sin, Adam put us in this boat by eating a piece of fruit. It wasn't the act of eating the fruit, it was the choice of Adam to defy God's will, to sin, (to miss the mark).

    So the question is, does Christ's sacrifice free us from the law? The answer is no it does not. It frees us from the penalty that comes from breaking it. To clarify, it frees those who accept him as their savior. Those who do not remain under the condemnation of the law.

    The saved and the lost have one thing in common, we continue to sin. If a Christian tells you they don't, they have just lied and sinned again. The perfect, righteous, glory of God is something no person can attain. Christ is our intercessor, his perfection makes the difference.

    The obvious question then is, if a Christian is saved can they do anything they want? Live anyway they want? Break any law they want? Paul anticipated this question in his letter to the Romans. Take 15 minutes out of your day and read Romans 6,7 and 8.

    Since homosexuality seems to have become a catalyst for this string of comments let me say this. I do believe it is an abomination. Just like adultery, murder, lies, hate, bigotry, immorality, pride, lust, etc. etc. I have fit into more than one of these groups in my lifetime, how about you.

    I will admit that Christians can often times come across as sanctimonious. It's a fault that many Christians have but we all get labeled with it. If you turn that mirror around, I've found that many who have no place for God come across as arrogant and uniformed. I would be gravely mistaken to label everyone that way.

    Since the stakes are as high as they are I do sincerely pray for those who ignore God's voice and remain under the condemnation of the law. There are really only two fundamental thoughts here, God or no God. If the latter is true then everyone has just wasted about 5 minutes listening to one of those crazy Christians rattle on. If the former is true however......

  28. Avatar for Ha
    Ha June 9th, 2005

    I find this hilarious and true on so many levels! Remember all you bible-beating monkeys: God exists in the here and now. Not just in the Bible days of Old. If God has shown us one obvious truth it is that life is always changing. Cell are constantly changing, seasons change, we breathe. One second changes to the next. With life always changin then, how do you ever try to impose laws that are over 2000 years old???!!

  29. Avatar for Bridgett
    Bridgett June 12th, 2005


  30. Avatar for mike
    mike July 15th, 2006

    doesn't jesus separate church and state in the new testament?... the 'render unto caesar' bit... i think that may apply here...

  31. Avatar for The Salvator
    The Salvator October 23rd, 2006

    DUDE--THIS IS EFFIN HILARIOUS!!!! i love it. its awesome. thx for the laff.

  32. Avatar for Erdajean
    Erdajean April 29th, 2007

    Love the epistle to Bush -- like that half-witted monkey could answer so much as a call from Nature.
    But the Hank missionaries are the work of pure genius. I am, by the way, a believer in the teachings of Jesus, which are pretty much lost on "Christians" I fear --

  33. Avatar for Stacy, L'amour de Paris
    Stacy, L'amour de Paris October 2nd, 2007

    Wow, I think reading the comments section was even funnier than reading the original post.
    That was so not even about Bush at all. I'm not even sure why it mentioned his name. In fact, I would be willing to bet this was originally written as a fake letter to a priest or pastor or something, and some overzealous liberal decided to change it to Bush's name.
    You people who respond to this with "HAHA AWESOME POST OMG BUSH SUX THIS IS SOOOOO FUNNEH!!" are pretty much exactly what is wrong with America right now. People are so focused on being anti-Bush (because it's apparently "cool" and "hip" to hate Bush nowadays) that they don't even care about the issues, they just want to get rid of him. Their answer to every political issue is "Bush sucks! Impeach him!" Bush didn't act alone, there were plenty of people in the government - Democrats, Independents, AND Republicans - who initiated, enabled, and supported a lot of the things that have screwed up America over the years. What we need is widespread change, a complete overhaul.. We need to get rid of the stupid party system so we can start electing candidates who represent the people, rather than representing one of two radical, self-interested parties that the vast majority of Americans don't agree with.
    Wow I can't believe I just launched into a huge political argument in the comments section of a blog.. I feel like a loser..
    Anyway, funny post. I enjoyed it :)