I didn't watch the video, but I can guess what went on. And I'll go further: I've seen weirder. I've been to tent-revivals with snake-handlers, people rolling in the aisles and speaking in tongues, and a six-foot-five Cherokee Indian preacher thundering from the pulpit. I went to a meeting billed as a "Charismatic Christian Fellowship Group", but turned out to be some weird folks who did group-sex as a religious observance (I found myself unable to participate with the kind of zeal they would have demanded, so I ended up going to a movie instead). I used to go to church with a guy who sincerely believed that the Pope was the Antichrist, and that we were living in the End Times -- he sold his house, all his possessions, and lived from day-to-day in a cheap hotel waiting for the Rapture to come. (I always wondered what happend to that guy when the Rapture failed to materialize....)

America is like a big bowl of breakfast cereal: chock full of flakes, fruits, and nuts.

Thanks for the link! I think the second link (to the Leno interview) was meant to be directed here, though:

http://malcontent.typepad.com/malcontent/2005/11/lenos_couch_not.html

'Member that election last year and all those Kerry folks talking 'bout Jebusland and moving to Canada. This is what those people think Red States are like 100% 24-7.

She is a perfect example of why there is so much of a backlash against Christians. Christ taught forgiveness, tolerance, turn the other cheek and all. That is nearly an impossible act to follow. Yet anyone who claims to be a Christian and is not forgiving, tolerant, and a cheek turner : ) is labeled a hypocrite. And to a certain degree, rightly so I suppose.

I've been to tent-revivals with snake-handlers

You mean people really do that stuff? I thought it was urban legend.

Yet anyone who claims to be a Christian and is not forgiving, tolerant, and a cheek turner : ) is labeled a hypocrite. And to a certain degree, rightly so I suppose.

That's not the problem. Calling people like this harpy hypocrites is accurate. The problem is extending that label to ALL Christians.

SD---not many but a few still do it.

IFI--Exactly. I'm going to be dealing with this reinforcement of the Christian stereotype for years to come.

Am I the only one here who smells a setup? $100 says she was playing for the camera.

Sue:

I thought it was urban legend.

Nope. Some Christian sects use a passage in the Gospel of Mark (16:18) to support the practice: "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

You see it in the Pentecostal and Holiness sects. The tent-revival I went to was just outside of Oklahoma City back in the early 1990's -- two or three people were handling rattlesnakes, speaking in tongues, the whole bit. I'll never forget that huge Cherokee preacher, though. He had a voice like a roll of thunder.

Beautiful Atrocities had that clip a few weeks ago. I thought it was hilarous! I sent it to my son titled "devotional message" (stolen from Jeff)

My favorite line? "Get the &*%$ out of here...in Jesus name!!"

Heh.

Not to be mean, but I am wondering if she has heard of the sin of gluttony?

But... still... the overreaction here was pretty unwarranted.

Ace's odd understatement of the year.

Cowtipper--yeah, I thought so too. Whoa, here she is on Leno! She's the Christian William Hung!

And while I'm not familiar with all the theology and terminology of every Christian sect, not all of what she was saying sounded familiar to me...

Monty--I think I've seen that Cherokee guy too. The Cherokee are very socially conservative; they annulled a lesbian marriage that was done under tribal auspices earler this year (Ace may have linked.) I'd tell you more but it's kind of off topic.

RWS--You're a peach. You should get your own blog!

Cowtipper:

After watching the Leno clip, I think you maybe right. She actually seems pretty funny. She didn't seem to be taking herself too seriously.

See-Dubya,

A great idea!! I'll see what I can do...;-)

Thanks!

Bill,

I was trying to be fair. Committed Christians are obliged (many feel) to avoid and rebuke the trappings of witchcraft and, of course, polytheism (which is what a lot of new-age religion is, after all).

I'm just pointing out that some of the stuff that a committed Christian would feel compelled to scorn were present here. A pentagram on the barn (okay, let's just call it a "star"), astrology, psychics (which could be called "witches"), etc.

But I think it's fair to say that this woman was not as much interested in drawing attention to the teachings of Christ as to drawing attention to herself and her own "spiritual warrior" cred.

Certainly she did nothing at all to convert anyone to Christianity. Quite the opposite, I'd say.

Feh. I watched it. Once again, I find myself in the awkward position of an atheist sticking up for religion. I'm guessing they had to work very, very hard to find a crazy fat woman with dental issues who can come unstrung on cue and act out every lefty's fantasy of what evangelical Christans are really like.

I grew up in the rural South in Foot-Washin' Baptist territory. That smelled wrong. Her clothes were wrong, her hair was wrong, and a woman with that kind of religious attitude wouldn't have gotten into a scheme like that in the first place. Hollywood equals Soddom and Gammorah; every fundy knows it. Oh, and she took the money after all. For a gastric bypass. Verdict: bullshit.

As an aside, you'd be amazed at how many different ways "Soddom and Gammorah" are spelled on the Internet. I threw caution to the winds...

Ace,

Your last comment pretty much sums up my position on this unfortunate incident. There's a right way to do the right thing, and a wrong way to do the right thing.

As an aside, you'd be amazed at how many different ways "Soddom and Gammorah" are spelled on the Internet.

L-A-S-[space]-V-E-G-A-S

Or so I've been told by my pastor, Reverend Joe Bob Allen Jefferson Davis Calvin McGurdy.

Nope. Some Christian sects use a passage in the Gospel of Mark (16:18) to support the practice: "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Holy shit (pardon the pun.) I assume these words are attributed to Jesus? Somebody should tell these people that Jesus was Jewish, and that we have a proclivity for hyperbole. I'd heard of the "camel through the eye of a needle" quote and the silliness at justifying that as literal, but this takes the cake. AND NO I DON'T MEAN STEALING REAL CAKE, SNAKE HANDLING PEOPLE!

If memory serves, I believe there's a significant body of scholarly opinion that the quoted passage at the end of Mark should not be part of the text. In many of the better translations, it appears in backets or with some other cue that the authenticity of the passage is questionable.

Your shock is based upon your assumption that people who participate in this show (or heck, any tv show) are otherwise-normal people who "just happen" top find a full-bore media crew in their living room. Once you realize that only the most eccentric (to put it mildly) people in America ever make it to broadcast, you will realize there is nothing to get excited about. This so-called "representative Red-America Christian" is just another member of the sideshow. It's just entertainment, folks.

In fairness to the show, they're, um, "fair."

Last season's best episode was about a preachy, screechy, and DUMB Vegan PETA woman inflicting her stupidity on a nice Cajun family, which definitely liked to eat meat.

And hunt crocodiles.

Yes, they search for crazies. Of course they do.

Who the hell wants to sit around and watch stable people? I'm stable. Who wants to watch stable?*

* From Soapdish, more or less.

Sue and Michael:

Charismatic/Pentecostal Christian rituals often baffle outsiders. It has less to do (I think) with adherence to Scripture and more to do with "being moved by the Spirit". These acts are not done as Scriptural adjurations so much as they are done in a devotional way, much as a Catholic goes to Confession.

If you're interested in flamboyant pentecostal preachers, read about Aimee Semple McPherson. Interesting tidbits: she was female in a time when Christian preachers were almost universally male; she commanded a huge congregation; and she ended up dying of a barbituate overdose. I've always thought her life would make a great movie.

She rode a frickin' morocycle down the aisle and up to the pulpit. Howzabout that?

I remember seeing one of those clips about a month ago - I agree with the freak-show for television sentiments.

Oh, and Sue, I'm one of those kinds of Christians who will put as much distance between me and a snake as I can get. When Genesis said "God put enmity between the man and the serpent", I think I got an extra dose.

Or as I like to say, the only good snake is a dead snake.

BTW I'm big into the second part about drinking any deadly thing--specifically cheap bourbon, room-temp box wine, and rotgut rum. Stuff'll kill you, but I see it as an act of devotion. That's just the kind of holy dude I am.

Yep, ole Aimee didn't just preach the AoS lifestyle, boys and girls; she lived it.

Shooting at the walls of heartache, bang, bang, I am the warrior!

So that's what Patty Smyth is up to do these days.

Soapdish?

Wow, haven't of that movie in a while. Ahh, sweet Elisabeth Shue. Stuff like this is why I keep coming back to the site. You're beautiful Ace.

And Teri Hatcher back when her face was not only real but spectacular.

I was raised around a large variety of holy rollers, and have seen some really weird shit in my life. I ain't ever seen anybody that out of control with regards to their Christianity. I think it's an act. I think most of the shit on "reality shows" is an act.

To the chagrin of my dad, I practice my Christianity with a very unemotional, highly cognitive bunch now.

In the Leno bit she seems to imply it was an act, if you ask me. At one point she says something about "not saying those things all at once, but it was me who said them." Not clear because I wasn't paying close attention to it, but I thought I heard something like that.

She also mentions needing a glass of wine, which most of the truly strident Protestant denominations would not endorse.

I couldn't watch all of it. I was embarrased for those kids and the dad. Don't you know they were thinking, "oh, God, she's on a fucking tear again, and all 135,000 FOX viewers are now in on our little family secret."

I've not seen the episode, but I'll bet you'd have a better chance of converting the new-agers to Christianity than getting Mama Cass there to cut down on the Haagen-Daaz.

How can you all be so sure that any of this is real?
Seems to me that there are plenty of aspiring actors
just waiting for any opportunity to get on national TV.
"There's a sucker born every minute."
nick

True Nick. It certainly would benefit the anti-Christian entertainment industry's agenda.

Another annoying tendency I've noticed is the lumping of all kinds of Christians together. There are some serious differences between sects, folks.

26% of the US population are Catholics. Figure is from a netural party, adherents.com. Yes, Catholics are a kind of Christian too, believe it or not. They have a very different point of view on a lot of the items that "Christians" are portrayed as being wacko about. Catholics as a rule love to dance, gamble, drink, and have sex, for example.... And they are certainly less concerned about the "trappings of paganism" :)

A lot of people in the US who aren't familiar with practicing Christians of ANY kind tend to think Christian means "Fundamentalist Protestant".

Of course shows like this play RIGHT into that stereotype. By showing the most wacko fundie behavior, you imply that ALL Christians must be that way.

"Christians are all shrieking wackos! It's a fact! I saw it on TV..."

I was trying to be fair. Committed Christians are obliged (many feel) to avoid and rebuke the trappings of witchcraft and, of course, polytheism (which is what a lot of new-age religion is, after all).

Sure. But this has nothing to do with average committed Christians (the vast, vast majority of whom can very calmly reject some hippie dippie gaia freaks without resorting to screaming), this has to do with some crazy batshit loon losing her fucking mind.

Honestly? If I were to guess, I'd think that your stretch to make sure that you are "fair" strikes me as taking care that your Christian readers here won't see you as Christian bashing - as Christians are wont to do these days, being the new aggrieved identity group UNDER ASSAULT from ALL QUARTERS.

I only say this because I used to take similar care to tiptoe around perception, until I stopped myself, wondering when so many right wing blog readers became perpetually persecuted identity politicians, and also when so many vocal Christians developed such a thin skin complex about Christianity's strength or place in this country (I hear it's still very popular).

But as I said, I won't guess about any of that, because that would probably just be me stirring up shit and making an assumption about what stirs inside your deep, dark head. And frankly, that scares the living shit out of me. Plus, it's not like it's a big deal either way.

Michael wrote:

If memory serves, I believe there's a significant body of scholarly opinion that the quoted passage at the end of Mark should not be part of the text. In many of the better translations, it appears in backets or with some other cue that the authenticity of the passage is questionable.

It actually goes beyond that. There is scholarly unanimity on the point that the passage in question does not belong. It's not in any of the earliest manuscripts, its style doesn't match the rest of Mark, etc., etc. About the only real debate on the issue is whether Mark originally ended with the preceeding passages or whether its ending was lost.

There is actually another ending to Mark that also shows up in late manuscripts. So apparently at least two separate people or groups found the original ending unsatisfying and tacked on a new one.

The only people that think that passage is legit are those that think the King James Version of the Bible was itself as divinely inspired as the original manuscripts and that nothing it in shall be questioned, and since they went with that ending the case is closed.

I personally own four or five Bible translations, and all of them have more than a cue such as brackets that it doesn't belong. They all flat-out say it is not in any of the oldest manuscripts and was added later.

I think her reaction had more to do with her insecurities rather than being afraid of satanists or witches. What is seen in that video is a mental breakdown. I've seen quite few of them in my life courtesy of some seriously insecure relatives. This lady uses religion as a way to allow herself the complete freak out. She's gets to pretend she is doing it in 'the name of God', therefore she shares no personal responsibility.

I would hate to have my mental breakdown recorded and then seen by who knows how many people throughout the world. That's really gotta suck.

Holy shit (pardon the pun.) I assume these words are attributed to Jesus? Somebody should tell these people that Jesus was Jewish, and that we have a proclivity for hyperbole. I'd heard of the "camel through the eye of a needle" quote and the silliness at justifying that as literal, but this takes the cake.

Actually, Christian theologians agree with you. The traditional explanation of this passage is that Jesus was referring to a gate in the city walls of Jerusalem, called the "eye of the needle", that a camel could not get through unless it was unloaded of baggage. This has been debunked, because no such gate existed. More currently, the explanation of the passage is that it is an example of typical rabinnical hyperbole, commonly used as a teaching tool.

I only say this because I used to take similar care to tiptoe around perception, until I stopped myself, wondering when so many right wing blog readers became perpetually persecuted identity politicians, and also when so many vocal Christians developed such a thin skin complex about Christianity's strength or place in this country (I hear it's still very popular).

Strikes me as odd, also, that relatively affluent white Christians (like me) are posing as the persecuted. It really comes to the fore in Intelligent Design debates. I mean, I routinely get my ass kicked on the Politburo Diktat and the World Wide Rant, but I don't feel persecuted. Actually, I regard the Commissar as a friend, and I think he feels the same.

My theory is that blogs bring out the whacko fringe of Christianity, and normal Christians are underrepresented. I'm thinking that the normal Christians I know are not really technologically astute.

uhhh....*taps Michael on the shoulder*...excuse me?

I've not seen the episode, but I'll bet you'd have a better chance of converting the new-agers to Christianity than getting Mama Cass there to cut down on the Haagen-Daaz.

So true, Rho. I've watched this thing 3 times and it just gets funnier each time. Wackos walk among us every day.

"They're not Christians!" she screamed repeatedly. "They're into all sorts of dark-sided stuff!"

What is she saying, that she found their cache of red lightsabers? Or that she caught them burning an effigy of Yoda by projecting lightning from their fingers like Palpatine? ("Are you threatening me, Master Not-My-Real-Mother?")

"They're not Christians!" she screamed repeatedly. "They're into all sorts of dark-sided stuff!"

What is she saying, that she found their cache of red lightsabers? Or that she caught them burning an effigy of Yoda by projecting lightning from their fingers like Palpatine? ("Are you threatening me, Master Not-My-Real-Mother?")

Not an act, you can't fake paranoid schitzophrenia. Seriously, you can tell when people have that by looking at them. I wouln't be surprised if it turned out to be illegal to exploit obviously full-blown psychotics like this.

The kicker for me, the note on screen at the end of that Trading Spouses episode just before the credit roll:

After careful consideration, Marguerite accepted the $50,000 cheque.

She had prevoiusly torn it up and thrown it out her front door during her psychotic episode because it was "tainted" by all kinds of "dark-sided" stuff. So to all the other fine descriptive adjectives in all the previous posts, I would add hypocrite.