San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, January 30, 2015

Shocking News: People Want Free Stuff

Despite the fact that the majority of Amerikans in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika initially opposed the enforcement of Obamacare upon them, those same citizens are now screaming to high heaven that the Supreme Court had better not overturn the subsidies they are receiving for their health insurance premiums.  Go here to read the full story.  You, no doubt, will be as shocked as I was to discover that, "A strong majority of Americans would want officials to restore often-significant financial aid given to Obamacare customers in much of the United States if the Supreme Court rules the assistance is illegal, a new survey shows....The poll reflects the fact that even as the Affordable Care Act continues to be viewed negatively by more Americans than those who view it positively—46 percent to 40 percent—there is stronger reluctance among the public to see those who have been helped by the ACA lose its benefits....But 64 percent agreed that 'Congress should pass a law' to restore the HealthCare.gov subsidies if the Supreme Court said the ACA as written does not allow them. While Democrats and self-described independents were the most supportive of that view, 40 percent of Republican respondents said Congress should pass a remedy.  In states served by HealthCare.gov, 59 percent said they would want their state to create its own Obamacare exchange in the face of a high court decision ruling the federal exchange subsidies are illegal. And a slight majority of Republicans in those states, 51 percent, agreed that their state should take such action."  Has everyone gone insane?  No, not really.  Everyone has simply given in to the sinful emotion of envy.
What we are seeing here is a classic case of beggar thy neighbor.  How is it possible to explain the contradictory beliefs that Obamacare in general is a bad idea and yet, at the same time, Obamacare subsidies are a good idea?  How can 46% of SDA citizens declare Obamacare to be wrong while, at the same time, 64% of SDA citizens will call for Congress to override the judicial decision of the highest court in the land and recreate Obacare if the Supreme Court decides to shut down the subsidies?  Under the very best of logical conditions there is a group making up at least 10% of the citizens of the SDA who both want and don't want Obamacare.  That is intellectual schizophrenia and it is to be expected in a society that no longer thinks but simply emotes when it comes time to make important decisions.
Did you vote for the Republicans in the last election?  Were you stupid enough to believe their lies about overturning Obamacare?  Did you really think they would allow the health care market to operate under free market principles?  How could you have been so dumb as to believe that even if Obamacare was overturned it would not be immediately replaced with some form of Republicancare?  Have you learned nothing from the abortion lesson?  Republicans who got elected promising to overturn Roe vs Wade have never done anything, even when they controlled both Congress and the White House, to overturn that murderous Supreme Court decision.  Republicans are just like Democrats.  They are all liars concerned with nothing but their careers and their pensions.  How can anyone continue to have faith in these people in light of the never ending stream of evidence that they are all, to a man, hypocrites and pathological liars?
Notice that the majority of Republicans will agree to create a new socialized health insurance system if the Supreme Court shuts down that part of Obamacare.  We are all socialists now.  We are the Socialist Democracy of Amerika and the Republicans are proudly leading us into a European style of socialism that will eventually bankrupt the country.  But guess what?  It is not their fault.  Do you know why?  The answer is simple.  You are the one to blame for this.  Every one of you who voted in the last election is responsible for this debacle.  Everyone of you who has clamored for a government handout of some sort is responsible for our present condition.  Everyone who demanded federal disaster aid is guilty as charged.  Everyone who looks to the federal government the moment the slightest thing goes wrong is responsible for where we are today.  Everyone who believes the government owes them a living is to blame for where we are today.  Come on, stand up and be a man, admit what you have done.  You are the cause of our socialism.
I will cut you some slack and help you to absolve some of your guilt, but it will come at a price I am certain you are not willing to pay.  The reason you both oppose and approve of Obamacare is because you are a sinner, guilty of envy and overwhelmed by your inability to turn down the government when it offers you free stuff.  Deep in your mind, not your heart, you know that it is wrong.  Deep in your mind you know that nothing comes for free.  Deep in your mind you know that everything the government gives you for free was first extracted, under penalty of law, from your neighbor.  But you don't care.  You can't overcome the sinful desire to get something for nothing.  It seems as if that big government check that arrives in your mailbox just appeared by magic and you do everything you can to convince yourself that you are not participating in an act of theft against your neighbor as you cash it. Admit it, you worship the government.
But you are not willing to admit that you are sinful, much less that you have the sinful emotion of envy.  You will certainly never admit that you see the government as the source of all good things in your life.  You will never confess that you turn to government on a regular basis to solve all of your problems.  You couch your receipt of stolen goods in terms of social justice and our need to do something for the underprivileged members of our society, whatever those phrases mean.  You sleep soundly at night, on a pile of other people's money, because you are successful at telling yourself what you are doing is good for society.  You remind yourself that most all of the money coming from the federal government, actually 98% of it, is being taken from the evil 49% of the population that makes the most money.  The members of that 49% are evil because they are making their money by exploiting the poor.  It is only right and fair for the government to step in and force them to pay their fair share of the bill.  And in this case their fair share is all of it.  So when you receive all of that free stuff you are actually engaging in a morally good behavior.  You worship at the throne of a Robin Hood government that easily convinces you that you are a victim of oppression at the hands of the rich and fully deserving of  transfer payments, less 20% for handling and political pension funding.
If Obamacare is a good idea, how about a new car for every family earning less than what the top 49% make?  It is certainly not difficult to justify the need for every family to have a functional automobile.  Once those deserving families have their cars we also need to make sure they have the gasoline needed to drive them around.  How cruel it would be to give them cars and not allow them to drive them.  So everyone making enough money to place them in the top 49%, evil people all, need to pay their fair share and add a federal income surtax to their tax returns to pay for the gasoline of the underprivileged.  How could anyone not believe that to be a good idea?  Only a cruel and heartless rich person does not see the wisdom of my proposal.  Of course the car needs to be able to continue to function in order for the poor working families of Amerika to be able to sustain themselves.  So the rich will be asked to pay their fair share and add a little bit more to their tax bill to pay for the maintenance costs of all hard-working Amerikan families below a certain income threshold.  Don't be surprised if the list of people on the receiving end of these morally necessary programs grows as those on the margin make the entirely rational decision to stop paying surtaxes and start receiving free stuff.  It is the Amerikan way.  Free stuff for all.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Jury Duty In The Holmes Case Is Nothing But Slavery

I have written about the strange saga of James Holmes many times in the past.  I wrote about how the family members associated with the victims of Holmes' rampage would attempt to capitalize financially on the tragedy here.  I wrote about how greedy lawyers would ignore the Sixth Amendment in order to fill their pocketbooks to the brim with taxpayer dollars here.  I wrote about how James Holmes apparently has retained his rights under the Fourth Amendment while the rest of us have not here.  And over a year ago I wrote how jury selection for Holmes' trial had not even started yet.  In that post, found here, I noted that, "The Denver Post today reported that jurors in the upcoming trial of James Holmes should be prepared to dedicate 8 months of their lives to the proceedings.  He is the person who killed 12 people, and injured another 70, on July 20, 2012 in an Aurora theater.  Over a year has gone by since that event and jury selection has not yet begun.  Holmes was captured immediately.  There was no doubt about his guilt.  There is no reason why this entire process should have taken more than a week or two to resolve."
Fast forward to today, now over two and one half years after the actual massacre took place, and the process of jury selection has finally begun.   Guess what?  The process of selecting the jurors is taking much longer than anyone would ever have imagined.  Do you know why?  There are several reasons.  During the first week of jury selection "roughly 900 jurors showed up for jury duty," as reported by the Denver Post.  "By the end of the day Friday, the judge and attorneys in the case had agreed to release 213 jurors from service after reading questionnaires those jurors filled out or hearing other excuses, meaning approximately 700 jurors will return for the second phase of jury selection.  That phase will start in mid-February and will involve in depth one-on-one questioning by the judge and attorneys on the case....Judge Samour and the lawyers on the case are looking for 12 jurors and 12 alternates to weigh fairly 166 charges of murder, attempted murder and other offenses filed against James Holmes..."
Does this entire process seem wrong to anyone but me?  166 charges of murder?  Isn't just one enough?  Why complicate and clog the judicial process with 166 murder charges when he only killed 12 people?  Could it be any more obvious that this entire process is just a political circus?  Earlier in the week I had read that the good Judge Samour was asking a question of each person who answered the summons to potential jury duty.  He would ask, "Do you believe James Holmes is guilty?"  Those who answered "Yes" were immediately dismissed with the verbal rebuke that in the SDA one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Are you kidding me?  Holmes has admitted he is guilty.  No one in the universe, including his lawyers, believes he is innocent and the judge dismisses people who quite sensibly believe Holmes is guilty?  The only reason this trial is being conducted is because the prosecutor, attempting to feather his political nest, is seeking the death penalty and the defenders, getting fantastically rich off the taxpayers who are funding their activities, have to argue insanity to avoid the needle.  In 90%+ of all cases that go to the prosecutor a plea bargain deal is struck prior to going to trial.  In this case, however, there is far too much money and political capital to be made to allow a plea bargain to take place.  There is no reason why this case should be going to trial.  Holmes should be sent off to the happy home for the rest of his life, to be paid for by the taxpayers of course.
All of my ranting up to this point is not my point for today.  Consider the Holmes case from the perspective of the poor soul who receives a jury summons.  Let me start by asserting that trial by jury is immoral.  I argued for that point in one of my previous posts.  It is the job of the judge to judge.  Judges should do what they are being paid for and render judicial decisions.  It is nobody's responsibility but their own.  It is time they assumed their responsibility and act as judges.  Second, Christian jurors are told that they are not permitted to use biblical law to render their decisions when they are forced to sit on a jury.  That is immoral and should not take place.  No Christian should ever be forced to violate the principles of his conscience and submit to the practice of enforcing the unbiblical sanctions of a God-hating government upon a fellow citizen.  The Bible is very clear on this matter.  When a conflict arises between the government and the Word of God we are to obey God rather than men.  There are no exceptions to this principle, including serving on a jury.  It therefore necessarily follows that no Christian should ever sit on a jury unless forced to do so under penalty of law and, even then, he should refuse to render an unbiblical judicial decision on the case he is being immorally forced to judge.
I have had the misfortune of going through the process of being summoned to potential jury duty.  I have been able to avoid actually being empaneled on a jury each time.  But what about the poor man or woman who gets caught?  What happens to them?  Even worse in the Holmes case, why should a citizen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika be legally required, under penalty of law, to give up eight months of his life to sit on a jury to determine the sanity of a man who should never be in court in the first place?  There is a word for that type of servitude.  It is slavery, pure and simple.  Holmes murdered many people in cold blood.  He should have been executed for his crimes many years ago.  But rather than doing what is right, the SDA judicial apparatus is forcing innocent citizens into compulsory and immoral service to the government.  Every one of the 26 unfortunate people who will be involved as jurors in this case are going to have 8 months of their lives stolen from them for absolutely no reason whatsoever.  Well that is not quite true, the lawyers on both sides will benefit tremendously.  I guess the financial and emotional destruction of 26 citizens, as well as their enslavement to the state for the better part of a year,  is a small price to pay to enrich the political class, praised by their names forever. Think about that for a moment.  The 26 people who are eventually selected will lose almost all of 2015 in their lives.  Including the time spent in jury selection their year will be spent sitting in a chair in a courtroom trying to determine the sanity of a man who killed 12 people three years ago.  They will be paid $50/day for their efforts.  Please tell me why that is not slavery?  Please tell me why that is not immoral?  Please tell me why that is not illegal?  Don't waste my time by telling me that jury duty is a privilege for all SDA citizens.  Why should 26 people be enslaved for one year to pay for Holmes' crime? The 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States abolished slavery in this land.  Sadly the Socialist Democracy of Amerika only pays lip service to the Constitution and every single day SDA citizens are enslaved on juries across this immoral country. 

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Colorado's Nanny State Ramps Up

I had previously posted to this blog an article describing how Colorado was starting to become a nanny state.  That post can be found here.  As Colorado's latest legislative session is starting to pass more laws for us to comply with I find it necessary to bring you up to date on how the nanny state is progressing.  If you are a fan of nannies, you will be pleased with the progress.
I was watching the local television news the other night when I was shocked to discover that the free market has created a product called palcohol.  Palcohol is the term being used for powdered alcohol.  The moment I heard of this wonderful new product my mind began to consider the many ways it could be used.  My first inclination was to rush out and buy a supply for my next backpacking trip.  One of the pleasures of backpacking is the joy of sitting around a campfire at night regaling one another with tales of that day's peak climb and just generally enjoying the evening.   I have often thought that it would be a nice addition to the evening if I had a shot of whiskey to sip.  In addition to taking the edge off the pain of sore muscles and hotspots created by the backpack, it would add a warm glow to the evening's festivities.  I have never carried any Welsh whiskey into the back country for the simple reason that it is excess weight that I would rather not carry.  But if that whiskey was available in a powdered form I would be pleased to take some on my next trip.
As you have probably already surmised, career politicians, nannies and other assorted kill-joys have already pounced upon the idea of a powdered drink with the intention of making sure it never sees the light of day, at least in Colorado.  The news report I was watching informed me that the Colorado legislature has introduced a bill to ban all palcohol in the state.  Talk about being preemptive!  Palcohol is not even available for sale yet and the nannies in the state house are crafting legislation to make it illegal.  What is responsible for this amazing act of foresight on the part of our rulers?  Why are they so adamant about making this new product illegal?  I think you have probably already guessed the answer.
A female Republican legislator, who's name I have forgotten, is responsible for the bill.  Remember the good, old days when Republicans believed in freedom?  Those days are long past.  Republicans today are the legislative equivalent of Democrats.  In fact, I don't understand why folks in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika continue to believe the fiction that we have a two party system.  But that is fodder for another post.  This air-headed female responded to the question about why we need this new law.  Her answer, somewhat paraphrased, was this, "We are aware that this law is going to infringe on the freedom of the citizens of Colorado but we believe it is worth it if only one child's life can be saved."
I could not believe that a career politicians would be so amazingly stupid as to actually use that worn out phrase about saving the life of just one child, but there she was, on local television, asserting just that.  I jumped from my rocking chair and screamed at the television.  I made it clear that I was not willing to give up an iota of my freedom, even if it would save millions of lives.  There are things worse than death, including being a slave to the state.  Needless to say, the lady career politician could not hear me, although my dog ran from the room and my wife covered her ears with her hands.
Public hearings were held on the proposed new law yesterday.  Although the hearing room was filled with people who spoke in favor of the new law, not a single person spoke against it.  The arguments were all the same.  If alcohol is available in powdered form it is inevitable that teenagers will get their hands on some and get drunk.  These people say these things with a straight face, as if no teenager has ever slipped a shooter into his pocket and consumed it at the movie theater.  If there is a moral imperative to ban palcohol because it could be abused and result in the death of a teenager, then there is an even greater moral imperative to ban all teenage driving.  A simple ban on teenage driving, although recognized as an infringement upon the freedom of teenagers, would be certain to save tens of thousands of lives.  Where is the ban?  I conclude that lady Republican legislators in Colorado are anti-capitalist hypocrites.
After a sleepless night pondering the nature of the nanny state I arose this morning to have breakfast and read my paper.  There, on the second page of the paper, was a feature article informing me that, "As the demand for yoga continues to grow in this fitness-happy state, the question of whether certain yoga classes need to be government certified has costly implications that critics say will drive small operations out of business.  The potential stressor in the studio comes after a yoga teacher complained that only six yoga teacher-training studios were following an oft-ignored 2002 law that required they be certified by the state."  State approval to run a yoga studio does not come cheap.  "Teacher-training programs that are required to be certified must pay fees to the state.  The state charges $1750 for an initial provisional certificate that is good up to two years, then $1500 for a renewable certificate good for three years.  It also charges $175 for every agent authorized to enter into a contract with a student, plus $3.75 per student per quarter." 
Please help me to understand.  Why does the state need to certify yoga instructors?  What possible moral basis can there be to charge a yoga business thousands of dollars a year for a piece of paper from the state allowing them to do business?  What is the danger here?  Or, as career politicians like to say, what is the compelling public health interest in having yoga instructors become state certified?  I don't recall when the initial law was passed back in 2002 but my best guess is that it was supported by existing yoga businesses which were upset at small, one person, start up yoga businesses.  Putting onerous financial requirements upon new start ups would be a good way to suppress competition and give existing yoga businesses state enforced monopoly profits.  Of course neither the career politicians nor the existing yoga businesses soliciting their protection from the free market would ever admit to that dynamic.  No, they would couch the legislation in terms of it having a compelling interest in the public well being, whatever that means. 
Those small businesses that oppose the certification requirements have asked many legitimate questions.  If yoga instructors need permission from the state to protect yoga students from becoming hopelessly injured while performing a downward facing dog, what about spinning instructors who exhort their patrons to stand on the pedals and spin at 120 rpm?  Falling off a spin machine at 120 rpm would do some serious damage to a body.  And what about those who teach Zumba?  When I am performing a back-facing, two and a half twist, full gainer Zumba flop it is entirely possible my ankles could seize up and I would be propelled to the ground, possibly damaging my enormous cranium.  I need a female Republican nanny to write a law to make sure that never happens to me.  I need to give up some of my flopping freedom to ensure that no one is ever injured in a Zumba class again. 
I am even worried about my own behavior now.  Why just last summer I came across a fellow in the mountains who was attempting to perform a dangerous down climb of an exposed rock face.  He shouted down to me and inquired about the best position for his next foot placement.  I told him where I thought the best placement would be and went on my way.  I assume he got down okay.  Little did I realize at the time that I was endangering that man's life by giving climbing advice without a government certificate.  How could I have possibly been so foolish as to believe I could help that person without the prior approval of the nanny state?  Indeed, how can anyone ever give any advice if he is not first certified by the state to do so.  I know that means that we will have to give up a little bit of our freedom but if it prevents one Welshman from damaging his cranium it will be worth it.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

A Simple Syllogism For Heterophobes

The debate over homosexuality seems to have been reduced down to a very simple proposition.  If public opinion polls are correct, the only people left in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika who believe that homosexuality is immoral are the small handful of Bible believing Christians who assert that God has declared homosexuality to be sinful.  It does seem as if the homosexuals have been successful in convincing everyone else in the SDA that their behavior is, at least, morally neutral.  And it does seem as if they have managed to convince that all important 51% of the citizens of the SDA that they should be granted "most privileged" status by the Federal government.  The Supreme Court of the SDA will be issuing a ruling this year in which it is widely expected that homosexuals will be given special status in the eyes of the government.  They will then join the ranks of blacks, women, one-legged people, midgets and career politicians as federally protected "most privileged" folks.
Since I find myself in that tiny group of Christians who continue to oppose the legalization of homosexuality I believe it is fitting to offer up a simple logical argument in support of my position.  Those of you who understand basic principles of logic will be able to follow my argument.  All of the rest of you, which I realize is the 99%, will not.  Despite the fact that almost no one will understand what I am about to write, I will do it anyway.  Here is a simple, logically necessary and logically valid syllogism:

If God exists, and
If God has revealed His opinion on various matters to humankind, and
If the revelation of God's opinion on various matters is contained in the Bible, and
If the contents of the Bible are infallibly and inerrantly the same thing as God's opinion on various matters, and
If God's opinion about homosexuality as contained in the Bible is that it is a sin worthy of death, then it necessarily follows that
Homosexuals are in big trouble and the Bible thumping Christians are right.

If you understand anything about logic you will be forced to admit that my argument is valid, but not necessarily true.  In other words, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true because there are no errors in logic as I proceed from the premises to the conclusion.  However, if just one of the premises is false the argument could still be valid but false.  Obviously I believe the premises are true.  Let me explain why.
God exists because He says so.  This is called the "ontological argument" for the existence of God and, if you have never considered it before, you ought to consider it now.  Christians are not as dumb as you think we are.  Can you figure out the ontological argument you God hater, or is it too hard for you?  God exists and you have no right to say that He does not.  In fact, He has said that anyone who is stupid enough to deny His existence is a fool. 
The Bible is also true because it says so.  This is similar to the ontological argument for the existence of God.  I do not have to defend the veracity of the Bible to you because the God who exists already has.  If you think that is circular reasoning you are wrong.  Circular reasoning is when you begin with yourself as the measure of all things and then stupidly pronounce the Bible to not be the Word of God.  You have found exactly what you set out to find.  Furthermore, God haters have no right to sit in judgement of what God has done.  It is your job to submit to Him, which you will eventually do one way or another.
God's opinion of homosexuality as found in the Bible is not difficult to understand.  The Old Testament law declares that people who have sexual relations with people of the same sex have committed a sinful act and should, once found guilty, be executed. The New Testament declares that homosexuality was a punishment enforced upon men for the previous sin of refusing to recognize that God is God, kind of like what I just wrote above.  God will not be mocked.  He commands men to worship Him and those who do not will be judged.  In the case of homosexuals God informs us that He has decreed that men should burn in their passion for other men as a judgment for the prior sin of not worshiping Him.  He then tops it off by reinforcing His Old Testament opinion, after all God is immutable so His opinion never changes,  that homosexuals should be executed.  Homosexuality also shows up on several lists of sins in the New Testament, all of which are described as characteristics of people who are bound for the Lake of Fire.
The typical heterophobic response to biblical arguments about the sinfulness of homosexuality usually focuses upon the fact that other biblical sanctions are described which are not enforced or believed by evangelical Christians so why, they mockingly ask,  should the sanction against homosexuality be enforced?  Here is an example of that argument, "Nothing to complain about, that is, besides the so called degradation of the Biblical standard of marriage. Upon what are you basing that? A passage or two saying that God hates gays? You know, there are also a lot of passages about stoning your children to death for disobedience, but I do not see you cleaning your guns on that account."  I remove this objection quite easily.  I believe that incorrigible juvenile delinquents should be executed, just as the Bible declares.  I also believe that adulterers should be executed, just as the Bible declares.  I also believe that witches and warlocks should be executed, just as the Bible declares.  In fact, I believe everyone that God believes should be executed should be executed.  Don't try and embarrass me with what the Bible teaches.  That technique might work with some but it will not work with me.  I am not ashamed to agree with God's opinions as revealed in the Bible.  Only an idiot and a fool would have the audacity to disagree with God.
So the entire debate really boils down to one thing.  Is God's opinion about homosexuality as revealed in the Bible true or not?  Holding the affirmative position does not make me a homophobic.  I do not suddenly contract a mental illness called homophobia just because I believe that God's opinion as revealed in the Bible about homosexuals is true.  Furthermore my belief that homosexuality is sinful and deserving of death does not make me intolerant.  All that it makes me is logically consistent with biblical teaching and, if I am right, God's opinion on the matter.  In the final analysis it is not my opinion that matters.  It is God's opinion that matters.
Homosexuals and their advocates are quick to speak for God and declare that He is right fine with them.  As far as I can tell every homosexual who has ever concluded that God approves of him has always come to that conclusion also as the result of a simple syllogism.  Here is the syllogism that heterophobes use:

God exists, and
I know nothing about Him except that He loves all mankind, and
My definition of "love" is that He lets everyone do whatever they want anytime they want, and
My only basis for believing this is my own feelings about things, and
I am a member of all mankind, and
I feel genuine erotic emotion for members of my sex, and
God would not have made me this way if He did not want me to be this way, therefore
God loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life. 

Which of these syllogisms would you rather believe?  I ask which one you would rather believe because if you are like 99.99% of humanity you will make your decision about which syllogism to believe based upon how the conclusion makes you feel, not whether it is actually true or not.  So go ahead, believe that which makes you feel good.  God has revealed something about your behavior in His inerrant and infallible Bible.  He says that most men will spend most of their lives believing in untrue things in order to suppress what they know is true about Him and His opinion about them.  You are only proving my point when you do exactly what God said you were going to do. 

Monday, January 26, 2015

Rich Tosches Is Intolerant Of Homophobes

Rich Tosches is a columnist for the Denver Post.  He wrote a column on Saturday that carried the title, "A message for a so-called pastor."  Let me tell you a little bit about Rich Tosches.
Rich believes that he is a tolerant man.  He brags about how he has no problem with homosexuals engaging in overt sexual behavior in public.  He has traveled all over the Socialist Democracy of Amerika and witnessed numerous acts of homosexual love in public and each time he witnessed those events he thought to himself, "how normal that looked...a couple in love."
Conversely, Rich Tosches believes that anyone who does not agree with his position on homosexual love is intolerant.  Being intolerant, in Rich's mind, is a bad thing to be.  Being intolerant means that one is seeking to strip another human being of his civil rights.  Being intolerant means that one is seeking to discriminate against another human being.  If there is one thing Rich will not tolerate, it is intolerance.
Rich finds himself in a precarious logical position.  He believes that he is tolerant but he finds that he has no tolerance for people who disagree with him.  Rather than reject his first belief about himself and declare himself to be an intolerant person he decides to write a rant against those who disagree with him, all in the name of tolerance.  There are words that describe Rich and tolerant is not one of them.  Hypocrite is one.  Liar is another.  Heterophobe is yet another.  For those of you who do not know, a heterophobe is any person with a pathological terror and hatred for heterosexuals.  But don't take my word for it.  Let me tell you what Rich Tosches wrote about a Denver pastor who teaches and practices the long held, orthodox Christian doctrine that homosexuality is a sin.
Rich wrote, after describing all of the loving acts between homosexuals he had joyfully witnessed, "I bring all of that information today only because I hope it makes homophobic Lakewood "pastor" Ray Chavez get nauseated, feel his dark heart skip a beat and make him want to run into traffic.  To be perfectly honest, I would not try to stop him."  So there you have it.  I wrote about Pastor Chavez last week.  You might want to read that post if you are not up to speed on the issue.  Pastor Chavez chased a lesbian funeral service out of his church building last week.  By doing so he upheld the Christian doctrine that has been practiced and believed for two thousand years of Christian history, as well as an additional four thousand years of Jewish history.  By doing so he continued the practice of forbidding homosexual activity that is consistent with the religious and cultural traditions of billions of people around the world.   And also by doing so, he did something that a very tolerant Rich Tosches did not approve of.  As a result, the compassionate, forgiving and tolerant Rich Tosches declared that he would like to see Pastor Chavez dead.  How sweet.
Rich Tosches is quick to use the pejorative label "homophobe."  A homophobe, as I understand it, is anyone with a phobic reaction to a homosexual.  A phobic reaction is "an extreme or irrational fear of something."  Rich does not argue for or defend his use of the term homophobic.  It seems to me that if he is going to accuse Pastor Chavez of having the mental illness of homophobia he should at least make a case for it in his column.  It also seems to me that if he truly believes that Pastor Chavez is suffering from a mental illness he should be compassionate and not hold him responsible for his actions as they directly relate to his illness.   But no, in a wild example of extreme hypocrisy, Rich Tosches seeks to indict, try, convict and sentence Pastor Chavez to death for what Rich himself admits is a mental illness.  How odd.
Rich Tosches did not stop by simply wishing that Pastor Chavez were dead.  He goes on to write, "Chavez is the chief money grabber at a church of some kind in Lakewood.  Its called New Life Ministries, apparently because Our Lady of Ignorance and Hatred wouldn't fit on the sign.  Its website says the so-called church 'is a place where those bound by drugs, alcohol, gangs and violence can find an Ounce of Hope.'  You'll have to look for another church if you're trying to find an ounce of intelligence."  So let me get this straight.  Pastor Chavez, who the very tolerant Rich Tosches demeans by consistently putting the word 'pastor' in quotation marks, disagrees with Rich about the moral propriety of homosexual behavior.  As a result of that simple disagreement it necessarily follows that Pastor Chavez is a money grabber.  Where does that come from?  How can the exceedingly tolerant Rich Tosches conclude that Pastor Chavez is a money grabber just because he disagrees with him on the doctrine of the sinfulness of homosexuality?  Rich, who is very tolerant, does not say.
Rich the Tolerant believes that Pastor Chavez is evil and worthy of death for holding to the historic Christian doctrine of the sinfulness of homosexuality and that he is also an ignorant and hate filled man for doing so.  Now that seems very strange to me.  I will confess that I have not made the moral progress in tolerance that Rich Tosches has but I do not see how faithfully believing a historic doctrine of the Christian church renders one an ignorant and hate-filled human being.  If anything is true it seems as if it might be the exact opposite is the case.  Rich Tosches appears to be utterly unaware of the history of Christian theology.   He seems to be completely unaware of God's opinion on the matter of homosexuality.   And, although it is incomprehensible to me, Rich the Tolerant seems to hate Pastor Chavez.
Rich Tosches also believes that Pastor Chavez is without an ounce of intelligence.  I am not sure how intelligence can or should be measured in ounces, it takes people much more intelligent than me to figure that one out, but to my unintelligent eye it appears as if Rich Tosches, despite being the very tolerant man that he is, has no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with his personal beliefs.  Why else would he say that Pastor Chavez is stupid without offering any evidence in support of his position other than the fact that they disagree with one another?  Is not tolerance for those who disagree with you a key indicator of tolerance?  If so, how can Rich continue to believe that he is so tolerant? 
Perhaps the most telling part of the entire column occurs in the last sentence.  Rich writes, "The God I know would be ashamed of Pastor Chavez."  Once again, 'Pastor' was in quotation marks.  Rich has made his opinion quite clear.  Because Pastor Chavez holds to classic Christian doctrines that have been believed by millions of people for thousands of years Rich believes he is unqualified to be a pastor and represent the God of the Bible to the world.  How does Rich know this?  Because his "god", whatever it may be, also does not agree with Pastor Chavez.  How convenient.