By Al Dexter.

When I was a child, my parents had a saying that still occupies a prominent place in my mind. It concerned people who were over impressed with themselves and thought they and theirs were somehow of superior quality. They would disgustedly say, “They think their shit doesn’t stink.”

There are lots of people with that attitude; ranging from individuals and families, locales and nations, political parties and organizations, religions and races, etc. I especially recoil when I hear the Jews referred to, by others and especially by themselves, as “the chosen people.”

Give me a break!

Chosen by whom? A marginal Canaanite tribal God that morphed into what we find worshiped today over centuries of clever development and synchronization with a whole host of preexisting deities and religious systems.

That self-worshiping, pompous, haughty pronouncement is an insult to every other tribe, nation, family, etc. on the face of the earth. It demonstrates a major problem afflicting all the nations and groups who trace their origins to any mythological or genetic connection with a guy named “Abraham.” His racial and theological descendants are classic examples of those who are absolutely convinced that “theirs” in actual fact does not stink.

This was all brought to mind very forcefully when I read an insightful article by Rajiv Malhotra. You can find the article here:

Rajiv opens his article with the following statement: “It is fashionable in interfaith discussions to advocate ‘tolerance’ for other faiths. But we would find it patronizing, even downright insulting, to be ‘tolerated’ at someone’s dinner table. No spouse would appreciate being told that his or her presence at home was being ‘tolerated.’ No self-respecting worker accepts mere tolerance from colleagues. We tolerate those we consider inferior. In religious circles, tolerance, at best, is what the pious extend toward people they regard as heathens, idol worshipers or infidels. It is time we did away with tolerance and replaced it with ‘mutual respect.'”

Here is the “rub.” No Abrahamic religion considers any other religion to be on an equal par with what they consider the only legitimate religion – THEIRS. All others are heretical nonsense and must be overcome and/or stamped out. That can even include the other Abrahamic faiths.

To Judaism, Christianity or Mohammedanism, acceptance of the legitimacy of any other religion is blasphemy. When they “tolerate” they usually consider it a great leniency to even allow existence to any other religion or any criticism of their religion. To acknowledge any other religious system as equally valid paths to God is the height of blasphemy in their eyes. Some individuals in all those religions are tolerant toward those of other faiths, but the majority of the leaders and the “movers and shakers” within those religions are not. Forget respect.

The Latin origin of “tolerance­” refers to enduring and does not convey mutual affirmatio­n or support. The term suggests an imbalance of power, with one of the parties in the position of giving or withholdin­g permission for the other to exist. The Latin word for respect presuppos­es we are all equally worthy of honor. There is no room for arrogance and exclusivit­y in mutual respect.

The US constitution presupposes we are all equally worthy of honor, no matter what our religious beliefs may be or whether we believe at all. Yet, even US Presidents who are sworn to uphold the constitution have stated that an atheist cannot be a loyal American citizen because this is “one nation under God.” (The god of Christianity, of course.) Our armed forces often deliberately discriminate against non-believing members and try to force them into attending religious gatherings. Those without “faith” have serious career problems.

“One nation under God” is an unconstitutional, prejudiced assertion based on that statement being erroneously and presumptuously added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s when we were engaged in a cold war with the “godless” Soviet Union. It wasn’t in there when I received my early education in the 1940s and early 50s.

Struggles with alien systems constitute a great danger to our freedoms. James Madison realized this. He wrote: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” He also stated, “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” President Eisenhauer realized that danger when he warned against the military-industrial complex.

Our nation and its constitution were set up by great men like Thomas Paine who resisted the outrageous and intolerant exclusivist claims of all religions, and he was basically acquainted with only the Abrahamic ones. His Age of Reason is available on this site and I recommend a careful, thoughtful reading of it to everyone.

There was a time when intolerance and lack of mutual respect only led to localized bloodbaths that didn’t threaten humanity as a whole. All that has changed with the advent of the atomic age and the prospect of global cataclysmic warfare prosecuted from land, sea, air and space. In their zeal to stamp out the “infidels,” the Abrahamic faiths are in great danger of destroying the entire earth and everything on it, including themselves.

I was never too worried about an atomic holocaust being started by the Soviet Union. They didn’t suffer from a religiously based insanity. They were quite rational and realistic as a whole and knew that a basically sterilized planet would be of very little use to them, even if they were among the unlucky few who survived.

That kind of rationalistic thinking just doesn’t exist in the minds of radical Islamists. They would confidently and lustfully look forward to their 72 virgins as they slowly died of radiation poisoning or froze to death in the nuclear winter.

What do female Muslims look forward to? Maybe they don’t count for any more in the Muslim afterlife than they do in this one. Where do Muslims think their god gets all those virgins? Is there a virgin bank in paradise with vaults full of virgins in suspended animation? Or, is there a celestial operating room with overworked doctors restoring hymens for virgin recycling? I’ve even heard women comment that they were no bargain as virgins. You’ll have to excuse me. Religious stupidity just tends to get me going.

As I pointed out in my article, Born Into “Suckerhood,” most of our beliefs and values are instilled in us by our parents and the society around us at a very early age. Tolerance, and certainly mutual respect, is not a prominent part of those teachings because we are also taught that we should not tolerate evil and any teachings contrary to what we were taught are deemed evil. Contrary opinions and practices can only be tolerated grudgingly and self-righteously.

The more authoritarian and repressive the society and the more incessantly these approaches are drummed into us, the more prejudiced and unyielding we become. Anything contrary is deemed an evil and, if possible, has to be stamped out. In the adherents mind, anything that doesn’t agree with their beliefs and approaches becomes heretical, smelly “shit” that stinks to high heaven. Their beliefs, of course, smell like wonderful perfume.

Would someone please open a window and/or turn on the fan?

Politicians, Priests and Pornographers Part III

Exploring The Common Denominator


The Miller test.

Developed in the 1973 caseMiller v. California. There are three parts:

[1] Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

[2] Whether the work depicts/describes, in apatently offensiveway, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law.

[3] Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

Patently offensive.

The phrase first appeared inRoth v. United States, referring to any obscene acts or materials that are considered to be openly, plainly, or clearly visible as offensive to the viewing public.

The Roth standard outlined what is to be considered obscene and thus not under First Amendment protection.

According to the “Roth Standard” a work is obscene if:

[1] The dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex.

[2] The material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters.

[3] The material is utterly without redeeming social value.

The Roth standard was largely replaced by theMillertestestablished byMiller v. California(1973).


So what does Armstrongism have to do with pornography? More than you might think! Lets look at the Miller test.

“Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

It is a well known fact that the groups known as the Churches of God have built a cultural tradition that has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding in either religion or the sciences. Most reasonable people recognize this. The reality is that the churches have never had anything to offer that was supported by concrete evidence. Baseless, if not wishful claims filled the pages of the Plain Truth, the Good News, Tomorrow’s World, and countless other publications.

To serve as an example, take the October, 1969 edition of Tomorrow’s World where we read:

“There can be no doubt that the present Royal Family of Britain are the direct descendants of the ancient Jewish King, David, and that Queen Elizabeth II sits upon the very Throne of David, and that one day in the near future there will be another crowning – perhaps the last in this age – on this Throne before the Messiah comes and takes over the very Throne which He was born to Occupy – the Throne of His earthly father David.”

The quote above tells us that “There can be no doubt.” Really? British Israelism rests upon a method of interpreting prophecy which reduces the Scripture to the level of a cross-word puzzle. Texts are torn from their context, and misapplied without the slightest regard to their original meaning. How can the churches of God be so willingly ignorant of the most basic tenets of this fallacy and so eloquent in the denunciation of modern scholarship? With this in mind, how can we take any of the churches of God seriously?
—Taken as a whole, the theory of British Israelism lacks serious
literary, artistic, political or scientificvalue.
See the Miller test, rule #3

The Missing Dimension in Sex

Of all the books ever released by the Worldwide Church of God, this has to be the biggest embarrassment of all. With comments by the author Herbert W. Armstrong, we learn these little tidbits of information: “Many men themselves do not realize it, but the left testicle hangs a little lower in the scrotum than the right.”
And another favorite:
“Many girls, participating in “necking” on dates, do not realize at all that the boyfriend is sexually aroused, ready for and desiring coitus, in a matter of five or ten seconds’ time.”
And speaking with the authority of Jesus Christ we read:
Just about every so-called “authority” whose book I have seen, and the medical associations, universally chorus the minor discordant error that masturbation does no harm. I say to you on authority of Jesus Christ and the Word of God that it does do harm – not only physically (even though temporary), but psychologically, emotionally, mentally, and most of all, MORALLY and SPIRITUALLY.”

Leaving little to the imagination, Armstrong injects on to the reader, pictures of the female clitoris, and male penis. He goes into great detail on how to stimulate your sexual partner, and achieve an orgasm. With his infinite wisdom, Herbert instructs us as to what position to take during intercourse, and the evils of masturbation.

What strikes me as I read this book is the dogmatic approach he takes with the subject. Not only does he present himself as one of the “Masters and Johnson” authoritarians on the subject of sex, he is prophet, dating coach, lawgiver, judge, child rearing professional, marriage expert, and biologist!
he dominant theme of the material taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient interest of the average person. We see in the psyche of Herbert W. Armstrong “A morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex.” Knowing the history of Armstrong and some in his cult, I label this book as religious pornography.
See the Miller test, rule #1

Compromising your integrity

One of the most compelling issues we have facing us in these times falls under the heading of Integrity. We are living in a new age of immense abundance in the areas of information, communication and possibilities. This new level of intensity can open many doors to almost anyone who wants to accomplish anything.

But the more we stretch ourselves toward accomplishing what we want in life, the more we are presented with the question of whether or not to break our own rules and make compromises. What we have come to recognize as our own truth comes under the heading of personal Ethics.

We describe ethics as:

Rational thinking.

Personal behavior intended for the highest good or best interests for all of society.

Honorable ways to accomplish goals.

When we compromise our personal ethics, it often happens very subtly, with escalations of commitment and expectations over time. When we find ourselves acting in opposition to our values, this creates an internal experience of being divided. This, in turn, leads to varying degrees of discomfort and psychological conflict. This is known as cognitive dissonance.

Just how far would you compromise your ethics in order to get ahead?

Let us look to pornography for an answer.

The pornographer recruits by exploiting:

Greed, in order to manipulate the moral integrity of the performer.

The excessive sexual desire or addictions of the performer.

Revenge against boyfriend, girlfriend, or *parental authorities.

Moral weakness of the performer.

The want of fame or notoriety.

*Neglect or abuse. Childhood trauma or other underlying influences.

The performers compromise their ethics (if they have any) by acceptance of the offer.


Selling out future opportunities in life.

Souring of relationships they may have with others outside the realm of their work.

Believe they are taking charge of their lives while they degrade and humiliating themselves.

All of us (the performers) who have been part of the Armstrong religion are guilty of ignorance and/or compromising our ethics. Our ethics are what defined us before the church experience and what defines us after. We must retain the ability to be honest with ourselves and admit that we have in the past, shut out of our minds, that inner voice of reason that we had been suppressing. As performers, just what were we thinking when:

We degraded ourselves by embracing Armstrong-ism?

We sold out what could have been a brighter future?

We shunned family and friends outside of our scope of believe?

We thought of ourselves as members of Gods true church at one time, the stark reality was that the ministry used us like ATM machines, abused and exploited us. Upon realizing these facts, we stood before the world as fools, degraded, humiliated, stripped and flogged. Like pornography, the Armstrong religion destroyed our marriages, families, and relationships. We became desensitized towards our fellow man, raging at the world in condemnation. But we were no different than the pornographer or recruit. We sold our integrity down the river when we accepted the twisted premise of the religion and all the baggage it came with.

The pornographers are those who exploited our weakness’s, recruited and maintained us in the religion. Of the participants, the Armstrong religion is an imitation of the master-slave, conqueror-victim paradigm. The masters exploited, the conquerable bowed a knee in submission.
—The religious group protected ministers, and members who were child molesters, adulterers, thieves and stalkers. The member who complained is demonized and expelled. The “work” is patently offensive by its representation of being a religion and by who and what it values. “By their fruits you shall know them.” Matt. 7:16
See the Miller test, rule #2


We have compared three types or classes of people here. The politician, the priest, and now the pornographer. What they all have in common is the basic art of deceptive practices. If we are to believe that one is superior to the other, we are still walking in error. People who never learn this lesson will always be a easy mark for the con man. Whether in a thousand dollar suit or in torn robes, the basic underlying factor here is that men desire power over another. It is a basic theme throughout history. The master and slave relationship.

In the slave relationship, one has little recourse to avoid the consequences. Yes, we all have compromised our integrity at one time or another. The true test of our character is if we allow ourselves or families to continue in error. To shut ones eyes to facts, to stop up the ears and refuse to hear, to not protest injustices, all of this is to accommodate whatever or whoever your master is.

The master knows no bounds. Like the pornographer, he exploits the weakness of the human being, allowing you to degrade and humiliate yourself. Yet you can change this relationship at any time. You can withdraw your permission from this person or group that comes between you and your God. The rock-solid principles of freedom of thought and freedom of speech takes moral integrity and ethics to put into place.

Think of it this way. Armstrong-ism is like walking into a crowded room and telling everyone there that its an open party with unlimited access to alcohol and sex. What could be the outgrowth if the host doesn’t have the ability to manage the crowd?

Social chaos in the church and in your family.

Politicians, Priests and Pornographers Part II

Exploring The Common Denominator


Just what do you think of when you hear the word “Priest?”

Wiki offers the following description: “Priests and priestesses have been known since the earliest of times and in the simplest societies. They exist in all or some branches of Judaism, Christianity, Shintoism, Hinduism, and many other religions, as well, and are generally regarded as having good contact with the deity or deities of the religion to which they subscribe, often interpreting the meaning of events, performing the rituals of the religion, and to whom other believers often will turn for advice on spiritual matters.“

We will skip the urban dictionary this time around and focus on the profession.

In the Christian religion, the priest (the second grade of clergy) is someone that claims to be called of God, who exemplifies Christ and Christ’s church, and works towards the reconciliation of all people with God and one another. They perform leadership duties in administrating the sacraments, worship services, and serve the membership in the area where they live and work.

Sounds warm and fuzzy doesn’t it? However, there is another side of this coin. Unlike any other profession, the priest stands as an intercessor between you and the Supreme Creator known as “God.” He is the middle man in the equation and claims that he will lead you on the “narrow road” that leads to eternal life.

No politician would boast such a claim, but the priest does. Claiming more power than any government authority on earth, the priest sews his noesis fabric into a set of doctrines that he guarantees as the way, the truth and the light. The crucial main ingredient is faith. The membership are told to have faith in God, and if we look at what the priest is really saying, it is “trust me.” Faith we understand is the confident belief or trust in a person, idea, or thing that is not based on proof. So how do you know if this person, the priest is trustworthy?

To trust one, you put your faith under that persons control. Faith involves a concept of approaching events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief system not resting on legitimate proof or material evidence. Informal usage of the word “faith” can be quite unspecific, and can be used in place of “trust or belief.”

Putting your faith in Armstrong-ism.

Generally speaking, in the realm of Armstrong-ism, some of these priestly leaders continue to go through life back-stabbing, back-biting, exhibiting anger and hostility towards others of the same or even different “faiths.” They are not to be trusted by the summation of mentally balanced people. They have few if any true friends. They are the egotistical elite, placing themselves at the center of the world with no direct concern for others.

But our dear priests have a winning formula! Kindly, charismatic, showing outward respectability, loving and caring for their fellow man, their expressed wish of sharing the gospel and leading others to worship the deity they have chosen for us, is all a bit much to stomach. The reality is that some who possess leadership positions in the various churches, use the the membership as if they are ATM machines. Others of the priestly ilk pick and chose from the faithful for sexual trysts. Some desire your children. The truth is, this is an ecclesiastical power structure which is an oases for pedophiles, adulterers, stalkers and even murderers.

The organizational hierarchy co-operates to keep such misconduct from becoming public knowledge. They fail to oversee, educate, investigate or properly discipline the misconduct of the ministers, deacons or elders. They ensure that criminal behavior (not limited to those in leadership positions) is never prosecuted or punished. You have just got to wonder if there is a mechanism of institutional restraint built into the system.

They are wolves masquerading as shepherds. They are what Wyatt Earp was to law enforcement in Americas Old West. Lawless, disgraceful and without a conscious, this ophidian cabal hides behind the facade of righteousness. Where is the righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail over this corruption that is contributing to the mental diminution of both adults and their children within the corporate church?

“The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”
—Albert Einstein

The Fox and the Grapes.

“The fox who longed for grapes, beholds with pain
The tempting clusters were too high to gain;
Grieved in his heart he forced a careless smile,
And cried, “They’re sharp and hardly worth my while.”
—Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE)

This fable is about people who attempt to hold antagonistic ideas while attempting to maintain their belief system simultaneously. As the prophecies that enticed us into Herbert Armstrong’s family business continue to fail, we all have asked ourselves “What makes it worth their while to stay?”

One of the great motivators of all time, used by both politician and priest, is the extraordinary psychological incentive known as “fear.” Following the successful soap salesman, the ministry uses diatribe, Herbert-style lunacy, to its utmost limits. Every despicable word, and manufactured falsehood paints a perfect picture of Armstrong style hysteria and bestowed hebdomadally as they unveil “a lesson for those with eyes to see.”

These lesson are not so much about spiritual issues as they should be, but they are about the core character of these self-satisfied, amateurish doomsday prophets. They consistently voice from the pulpit an extensive treatise whose hypothetical propositions (prophecies) are put forth without a shred of evidence or scholarship. With the catastrophic power of corporate church fascism and with the repression of an authoritarian government, they will never allow the blue ribbon tithe payer to rise up and challenge them as to their agone prophecies. If challenged, they will try to convince you that they are of unstained ethical standards and representatives of an all knowing and loving God. Suchlike the authoritative state, the church and the leaders are never erroneous in their edicts.

The rotting structure who’s foundation is built on the failed prophecies and falsehood of Herbert W. Armstrong can not stand. The door has been kicked in and the structure trembles before the fall. The fable of British Israel-ism has evolve and continues to evolve, all to fit the times we live in. World events present new problems for the Armstrong groups. The world players are changing with antagonistic states or groups rising up and challenging America. Will the membership remember what they hear from the pulpit? Will they demand an accounting from the leadership when their prophecies fail?

History shows us that the minority will continue to follow the repressive, heavy handed mind control groups. What will be left as this structure fails? You will see small groups of people shuffling from one end of the demolished shack to the other end. Like rats, they never leave, just doomed to become religious nomads within the structure of Armstrong-ism.


Fear is the apical motivator that keeps people involved.

Fear of the ministry.

Fear of losing a fictional crown.

Fear of isolation by the current membership after leaving.

Fear of learning what is behind their cognitive dissonance.

Fear of change. Like the fox who could not obtain the grapes, they quit and renounce the objective goal. These are the real losers in the crumbling Armstrong empire. They will live in fear, unable to achieve their personal goals, in or out of the church. To these I say “Stay. You belong in tinfoil-hat land.”

“Armstrong-ism may have been conceived in philosophical theory, but it quickly degenerated into meretricious Lysenkoism.”