Archive

jesuit

Dude,

Your everlasting gall is hilarious – but to a point. This laughable video is not an “exposé” on me in any way, shape or form. That which I freely post on my website is in no way hidden so it is nothing you can expose in your amateurish attempts to joust with the jebbies.

(I know this is you as it has your paw prints all over it. If it is not you it is someone close to you who worked in tandem with you. It picks exact the same irrelevant points that you have already posted, er, “exposed”… All you do is attempt weak innuendos based on things that I have freely posted on the internet. Openly posted. Try a bit of honesty once in a while.)

If you were a man, at least an honest one, you would actually read the book then take me for task on anything that is false about the book. And by false, I mean factually untrue. You don’t do so because you cannot do so. You rely on irrelevant ad hominem attacks and now try to cloak your attacks by passing them off as someone else. The only thing you can point out is an interview that I posted on my blog. You have not even opened the book. The truth is you don’t care what the truth is because you refuse to even face it. Otherwise you would have answered to it when you were challenged on your lying about this before. It is odd to me how someone as dishonest with people as you are (regarding the crap that you disseminate) can do it with a straight face. If what I have written is wrong then prove it. Put up or shut up. And no more of your misleading agenda or cloaking your work by publishing videos that are under a different name.

So, post all you want to. Make false claims about me being a Jesuit Coadjutor as you have in the past. But you are a person lacking in integrity if you cannot open the book, look at the comparison of what the fraudster Alberto Rivera has said compared to historical truths. If you want to attack me then do it on the basis of the research. Otherwise the world will only be able to see you as the small man you are – the one who was such a bootlicker of that great prophet, Tony Alamo, (who conveniently became the rat jumping from the sinking ship when it became apparent to the world that ole Tony was going down for the same things these Catholics priests that Thomas rails about).

Do you have it in you or are you going to keep spouting the same old bunk that you have been putting out so far? Can you show the research to be false? Nah, I’m starting to wonder whether you have attention deficit disorder that filters out anything you find disagreeable.

So what’s it going to be, Alamo boy? Can you take on the truth? Will you ever? Please? Or will it be more “oh, he’s an alcoholic who puts dirty jokes and porn on his website…”? If you think you are righteous then stand up and show us. Prove me wrong. Where in the book, in the well over 200 pages, is it wrong? And don’t turn to my blog again and say “he interviewed a Muslim who works at a Catholic university”. If you had the book you would know that this was only an addendum. And if you do take that up, which is your lazy, dishonest, style, then at least point to where this guy has put out wrong information if you can find it. Turn to the book. I am standing by my story because I have done the research. Can you stand by yours?

kurt-kuersteiner1

Kurt Kuersteiner

I have gotten to know Kurt Kuersteiner a bit over the past few years.  I first met him when I was interviewing him for my first published book Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness: The Truth about the Vatican and the Birth of Islam. Kurt is a very interesting character if you ask me and he is well known in the “Jack Chick” circles.  Kurt is the author of an exceptionally well done anthology of Chick Publication works The Unofficial Guide to the Art of Jack T. Chick: Chick Tracts, Crusader Comics, And Battle Cry Newspapers and he directed the documentary God’s Cartoonist: The Comic Crusade of Jack Chick, which I found engrossing.  I have copies of both the book and the film.  Kurt is an adjunct Communications professor in Tallahassee Florida, where he also publishes entertainment trading cards for Monsterwax.

gods-cartoonist6Kurt and I approach Jack Chick in very different ways. Personally I don’t care what he puts in his tracts about sin in and of itself – it is when Chick tries to glaze over historical fact to promote his own point of view that I get bent out of shape with him. Kurt, on this other hand, sees Jack Chick as a cultural phenomenon that deserves respect for his work and his accomplishments. Or at least this is my understanding of Kurt’s point of view. You can see for yourself what he has to say.

What is it that you like most about the Chick Publication tracts and what got you to research your book?


the-art-of-jack-chick3 It is inspiring to me to see a writer try to get his message to the masses, and without the help of any corporations or political party or even organized church, he is able out-publish everyone else! What is especially interesting is that his message is so politically incorrect, and if anything, the corporations, political parties, and (the majority of) organized churches have tried to marginalize him. Yet there is his, an underground cartoonist with his vision, who engineered a crusade that catapulted his work around the world and made him the most published author alive today. Chick has printed over 800 million tracts and is still going strong. That is a testament to creativity, determination, faith in the product, and the American dream. It proves that unconnected individuals can still succeed in this country if they work long enough and hard enough.

Personally, which do you like better, the Jack Chick style or the Fred Carter style?


carter-the-letter1 I especially love Fred Carter’s art. It’s beautiful. He’s one of the best comic artists around and he’s very versatile. Too bad he’s ignored by both ends of the comic book business because the corporate side can’t hire or exploit his talents, and most of the customer side thinks he’s a square since he’s a fundamentalist. Even if most people disagree with his beliefs, they should still recognize his artistic talent and respect his willingness to give up so much in order to promote his faith. Interestingly enough, most my artist friends prefer Chick’s art, because his style is so distinctive and retro. Together, the two artists make quite a team!

Do you think that it is possible to be a fan of Jack Chick and disagree with what he is trying to get across? Is it possible, for instance, to be a secular art collector who appreciates the work but remains untouched or unchanged by the message?

To the first part of your question, the answer is definitely “yes”. I know all sorts of gays, Catholics, Jews, Rock and Roll fans, Witches and even self proclaimed Satanists who love collecting Chick’s tracts. Some feel it’s a guilty pleasure and others rationalize that his conspiracy theories are so extreme, that they only encourage the opposite view. Several of these Chick critics/ collectors wrote reviews for my book, so I know he has fans who love his product but hate his message.

When you ask if it is possible to remain untouched by his message, of that I am less sure. I suspect the more people collect his work and appreciate his talent, the harder it becomes for them to hate everything he represents. In other words, it tends to soften them to Chick and his message over time. They may still remain a gay Satanist Rock and Roller, but when their pals come around with a truck and baseball bats and want to go crack some Christian heads (to use a Chick analogy), they become less inclined to join the fun. It’s much easier to hate a group when you don’t actually know anyone in that group, yet everyone who reads Chick can’t help but get to know him after a while.

I look at the tracts and the comics as totally different kettles of fish because I think more often the tracts are aimed at a specific “sins” or “lifestyles” whereas the comics tend to tell “untold” histories or present conspiracies to the reader. Most of these subjects are quite controversial. How much research into these subjects do you feel that Jack Chick would have done before producing the tracts and comics?

The tracts are different from the comics, as you point out, but the comics tend to split up into two different groups as well.

The comic books remind me a lot of the TV show The X-files, but instead of agent Mulder and Scully, you get Tim Clark and James Carter, aka “The Crusaders”. Remember how there were two different types of X-files episodes? The first type was the conventional monster-of-the-week (M.O.T.W) tale, where Scully and Mulder track down the vampire or Mutant on the loose. With the Crusaders, that monster is Satan in the guise of some evil villain or cultural vice.

The earlier X-files M.O.T.W. stories were the episodes that got the public hooked, because they had the most action and eye candy. The same goes for The Crusaders. The first eleven comics have Tim and James dodging bullets, racing cars, and escaping other violent entrapments (thanks to the power of prayer) and always saving the day (or non-believer) by the end.

Later on, the X-files created a different formula, the conspiracy episode, which featured less action but put more emphasis on mystery and intrigue. So did The Crusaders. The basic difference was that while Agent Mulder and Scully got information from Deep Throat (a former insider) who tattled about the ongoing UFO conspiracy, The Crusaders listened to Alberto (who was said to be an former Jesuit) explain the vast Vatican conspiracy. The general public was less impressed when both series got deeper and deeper into the conspiracy plots, but the hardcore fans loved it.

Ironically, Deep Throat was shot in Mulder’s presence for revealing the truth in the X-files. And someone actually shot at Alberto Rivera in Chick’s presence (in a drive by situation) in real life. Year’s later, Alberto died of colon cancer, but he blamed it on a special poison given to him by an undercover Catholic. (I think I hear the X-files synthesizer playing now!)

Regarding Chick’s research: Chick’s background was in acting. He graduated the Pasadena Playhouse just after fighting in WW2. He likes drama so sensational plots are a natural attraction to him. That being said, he also feels constrained to tell the truth as he sees it. He believes in a living God who intervenes in our daily lives, which many Christians also believe. Where he differs is that he also believes in a real Satan, and that the devil ALSO intervenes in our daily lives. (Many Christians say they believe in the Bible but don’t actually think the devil is real.) This is why Chick is so suspicious of conspiracies, because it only stands to reason that the Prince of Lies would use conspiracies to promote evil, corrupt popular culture, and turn people away from the true Word of God (The Bible).

halparody

Chick reads his King James Bible, and sees how modern translations keep watering it down with newer and looser language, until they get to the point where certain churches want marry gays, and another wants to make Mary a “co-redeemer”. Chick sees these beliefs as blasphemies and proof of a Satanic plot to undermine Christianity from within. Now some may believe its just a coincidence that our culture, our government, our schools, and even many churches are working together to lead society further and further away from traditional Biblical values, but Chick and his supporters find that too hard to swallow. They recognize these changes as being orchestrated by activists, factions, unions, and special interest groups who have a progressive agenda. Chick and fellow fundamentalists believe that agenda is evil and inspired by Satan to turn the world against God. (You can choose not to believe it, but you can’t say that it doesn’t make sense.)

Like any good lawyer, Chick sets out to research and gather information that supports his position. He’s not interested in proving the other side’s case, so he only includes info that supports the fundamentalist view. He’s used different sources in the past, and some of them are quite controversial and shaky. However, David Daniels, the man who currently helps Chick write tracts (and numerous books), is a good researcher who knows how to document his sources. Daniels has a Masters of Divinity from Fuller Theological University and is well trained in the Bible and linguistics. So basically, it appears that Chick is responding to criticism that his claims have poor sources by bringing people like Daniels on board. Whether that helps him win more of his cases in the court of public opinion remains to be seen.

Do you have a favorite tract or comic (or both)? If so, which ones and why?

My favorite tracts are Wounded Children (about homosexuality), Angels? (about Rock and Roll), Satan’s Master (about witchcraft), Lisa (about child molestation), and Dark Dungeons (about role playing gamers). The main reason those are my faves tend is a combination of the sensational plots, the cool art, and, I confess, the fact that they are all out of print and rare.

spellbound

My favorite Chick comic is Spellbound. It’s an action packed tale revolving around John Todd’s testimony about the Rock and Roll industry being run by the Illuminati. (Alberto later co-opted this claim by saying the Vatican controlled the Illuminati.) Spellbound has a pretty down beat ending too, with only a Pyrrhic victory, since one of two main characters is murdered before he can convert, and the news media compare the Christians to Nazis when they burn the Satanic Rock and Roll records.

john-todd1On a happier note, John Todd’s character (Lance Collins) is saved from being shot in a drive by attempt, something that John Todd claimed happened to him in real life (but Chick did NOT witness that situation). These sure aren’t your average comic books!

If you found this post interesting and would like to receive updates by e-mail then click here to register to receive my new posts!


Thomas,

How are you?  I hope well!

I just saw the below message from you which his reply to a post from a viewer in Melbourne, Australia:

—–
tlthe5th (1 month ago) Yes, I read through some of it. Some of it’s highlights. It’s trash. And i mean it. i was so happy to see that actually. What sources he used were very weak and most of it wasn’t sourced at all. The man is a total Vatican shill as well.
—–

For your reference, this was from this YouTube page.

I am writing this to you because a friend of mine in the United States just sent me this exchange between you and the viewer that concerned me directly.  I saw the link from her and at first I thought that I would just leave it but then I listened to your diatribe about “lying” in the beginning of this video.  As such I feel compelled to reply.

I am the author of the book in question, “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness: The Truth about the Vatican and the Birth of Islam”, and after reading your comments I have to say that I really do not believe that you have actually even seen my book.  I personally think that you are lying.  I wrote a reply to the post which I hope will be posted.

Where do I start?

Besides calling the book “trash”, which I could be taken as a qualitative opinion on any aspect of the book (cover, artwork, writing style, etc.), I have problems with a few of your assertions.  You are free to call the book trash if you want.  I certainly don’t share this view but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

What set off alarms in my head was when you said that my sources “were very weak” and “most of it wasn’t sourced at all.”  You went on to say that I am “a total Vatican shill as well.”

First of all, I spent two years on the research of this book and there are multiple sources on almost every page.  I am very adamant that the sources are open and in order.  I hereby request you to point out exactly which sources were weak.  I ask you in the process to point out exactly what segments of the book were not sourced at all.  I think the onus is on you here due to your unwarranted comments though I seriously doubt that you will take up the challenge.  Case in point, in your own video you don’t source your own assertions about Leo Ryan, the CIA, Jim Jones, Gary Metz, etc.

As for me being a “Vatican shill”, I am not a Catholic, have never been a Catholic and on top of that I am highly critical of the Pope and the Catholic Church on almost all of their positions.  I was raised in an Evangelical church.  My book had nothing to do with defending the Catholic Church at all.  It was solely about taking all of Alberto Rivera’s claims regarding the Vatican and the birth of Islam and looking at them one by one and examining them for the historical truth.  If you have indeed seen the book, which I doubt, you will note that include Rivera’s entire testimony word by word broken down by chapter.  In fact the opening of every one of my chapters that discusses Rivera’s testimony in the book are Alberto Rivera’s own words, as published by Jack Chick, laid out for examination by the entire world.

Personally I do not believe from reading your comments about my book that you have even been in the same room with my book.  (If so can you tell me where you saw this book?)  I recommend that you have a look at the book yourself.  Once you have actually seen and examined the book (and hopefully you will even read it as well!), compare it to your comments.  I think then you will see who is a bullshit artist and who has done their homework.

Best regards,

Gary Dale Cearley

This open letter is directed to Thomas Richards.

If you found this post interesting and would like to receive updates by e-mail then click here to register to receive my new posts!