Katy Perry and I Had Similar Childhoods

August 3rd, 2010 // 171 Comments

Katy Perry is featured in the latest issue of Rolling Stone (above) where she opens up about her religious upbringing that she’s apparently only slightly abandoned to pursue a more lucrative career shooting whipped cream out of her tits. I say slightly abandoned because she seems to see nothing wrong with her parents literally babbling at each other and pretending it’s divine communication. Via CNN:

The California girl, who has “Jesus” tattooed on her left wrist, tells the magazine, “Speaking in tongues is as normal to me as ‘Pass the salt..’ It’s a secret, direct prayer language to God.” Perry, 25, adds that her dad usually speaks in tongues while her mom plays interpreter. “That’s their gift,” she explains.
“I wasn’t able to say I was lucky because my mother would rather us say that we were blessed, and she also didn’t like that lucky sounded like Lucifer.”
In fact, the quirky brunette reveals, “I wasn’t allowed to eat Lucky Charms, but I think that was the sugar. I think my mom lied to me about that one.”

WARNING: If you’re looking for witty comments peppered with penis jokes and/or are easily offended when someone points out Jesus is a fictional character, now would be a good time to abandon the post.

For those of you who don’t know, I grew up in an evangelical household – my father’s a pastor – so allow me to explain how “speaking in tongues” works in case you’ve only ever lived in a world of logic and reason: It’s bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Basically, in the heat of spiritual frenzy, you start babbling incoherent gibberish because somewhere in the Bible it says that bystanders heard Jesus’ disciples praying in “foreign tongues.” Except what you see in churches across America is people pretending to be on a direct wavelength with God and given an opportunity to demonstrate that fact so everyone can see how super-Christian they are. Again, bullshit. Even more bullshitty is Katy Perry’s mom claiming she can interpret it. It’s babble. Literal babble. That’s like saying you can communicate fluently with infants in their own language. “Baby Jimmy thinks this episode of Sesame Street is as loquacious as it is pedantic. Also, poop.”

I literally feel for Katy Perry. When I was 25, I also had a sense of the real world but wasn’t quite able to accept my parents’ belief as the intellectually bankrupt, man-made constructs they are without compromising my love and respect for them. Except I at least had the luxury of attending a secular high school and college instead of Christian “schools,” so I understand the indoctrination runs way deeper here. Though apparently not deep enough to ward off premarital British cock. So maybe there’s hope here yet.

*climbs off soapbox*

Photos: Rolling Stone


  1. Katy Perry in Rolling Stone
    Commented on this photo:

    I’d turn gay for her!

  2. mmm

    “:more than 50% of scientists have thrown eveloution out of the picture. They only teach it to us, because they can’t find any other explination so of course they had to make something up. ”

    but you have proof that exactly 50% of scientists feel this way. ? obviously..because your not making things up!

    evolution not eveloution
    explanation and not explination
    learn to read and write first –don’t worry about religion/ science…

  3. Rich

    “For something to evolve, the previous creature that the new creature evolved from must become extinct.”

    This is one hundred percent incorrect. A significant portion of the creature’s community simply has to adapt and pass on their adaption — enough to be considered a new creature.

    Here’s a dumb-downed example:

    Creature X live up and down a continent. Creature X comes in all shapes, sizes, and colors — just like we do — but is typically small with a short neck and eats fruit off of low branched trees. In the north of the continent, a parasite emerges/migrates to it that wipes out all low branched trees. As a result, the short X’s die in the north, while those among them that were tall enough/have long enough necks survive. These X’s pass on their height genes to enough of their offspring that the segment of X with f taller/longer necked survives.

    Next, though, a radical drop in temperature happens in the far, far north that forces an alpha predator to move into the biggie X land. The predator has wonderful vision, save for that he cannot see shades of red (like bees, I believe). He kills off all the biggie X’s but those who are red.

    A germ he carries infects those biggies with low fat intestines, killing off those ones and leaving the big, red, high fat intestines — the high lipid content of their intestines is too much for the germ to endure.

    Now you have a tall, red, low fat intestine beast that is looking less and less like the original creature ex by the evolutionary minute — which is usually a long, long time.

    And so on and so one.

    Now, eventually, that radical drop in temperature from the far north encroaches on the lower biggie X north, forcing them to migrate to the south, where they co-exist with their ancestors. Perhaps biggie X has changed so much from origie X that they can no longer breed.

    And, in a nutshell, that’s how it goes — that’s the theory that, as far as I can tell, most scientists subscribe to and that our government has decided must be taught in school rather than creationism, which is not merely the belief that there is a god, but that we were created by him in his/her/its image, rather than evolved uniquely into our own. In my view, God and evolution are mutually incompatible, but that’s neither here nor there. I believe it without knowing it for sure, just as I believe that when my wife goes to sleep before I do, I believe that she doesn’t sneak out the window and go on a killing spree. I don’t know that for sure, but I believe it because the opposite seems so impossible to me. It’s the same thing with people of religious faith, in my opinion, they believe without knowing. What separates the two is common sense, I say, and evidence: My wife is not acrobatic, she has a debilitating back condition, and can’t stand violence — and I can also hear her breath on our baby monitor — not conclusive proof (it could all be a lie/simulation) that she doesn’t Zodiac at night, but may as well be, I think. It’s good enough for me, while the evidence of God’s existence (particularly the versions of him that show up in religious texts, as opposed to the generic idea of him), which I say is “evidence” is not.

    But that’s just me.



  4. Rich

    “Considering this, ´speaking in tongues´, as utilized in modern Christianity, is a sham.”

    Can’t Christianity, like all the religions Christianity says are shams, be a sham along with its glossolalia (speaking in tongues), as well? If not, why not?


  5. Rich

    “There is more PROOF that Christ walked the earth and was holy than there is in any of these science theories people come up with.”

    Like what? Nothing in the New Testament was written during his alleged lifetime. Paul, the first NT author, wrote in the 60s, the Mark, the first Synoptic Gospels, a bit after that, the rest were written in the forty following years or so. In addition, Josephus, whose work Christians often cite as writing from Jesus’ life time, wrote of Jesus (assume that there is no basis to believe that his mentions of Jesus were not written by his own hand and go with it) in the late first century, which makes sense, seeing as how he was born in 37 AD.

    Then there are the contradictory accounts of the events of Jesus’ life: Who encountered him at his tomb? How long did his ministry last (one year or three as John says)? Was he presented in the temple or was he and his family fled to Egypt at this time? There are also the mistranslations of OT text to support the claims of his magic nature. In the OT Isaiah, a “young woman” (bethulah) will be “found with child,” not a “virgin” (alma); the name Emanueal (God is among us) is not the name Jesus (God is salvation) — only if you start with the assumption that Jesus was God among us can you make any connection between the two of them. There is no “Lucifer” in the OT or a demon named “Satan,” etc., etc.

    There’s also the fact that these alleged, absolutely spectacular events surrounding his life are recorded in no documents at the time they allegedly occurred: The slaughter of the male baby Jews, the turning of day to night, the tearing of the veil in the temple,the rising of the dead, etc., at or around Jesus’ time of death; as well as the bizarre aspects of his story that don’t add up to him being an all powerful, omniscient, kind-hearted God: His magic powers fail to yield fruit from a fig tree; they zap into a woman when she touches him, but he can’t figure out who that was; he requires his followers to hate their families and themselves; orders his followers to slay his enemies … and don’t even get me started on what he will supposedly during during the end of times, which was, according to the man himself, supposed to occur during the lifetime of his apostles.

    And of course, there is simply the matter of the supernatural elements of his story: I don’t believe in magic, so I reject them same as I reject them in all other religions.

    And on and on.

    So where’s this evidence?


  6. Pro'orizo

    As has been noted previously, “speaking in tongues” was not people babbling nonsense that had to be “interpreted.” They were speaking foreign languages in order to spread the gospel around the earth. Once this was done, this gift, as all the other gifts, faded away.

    I don’t believe in cross-species evolution. Why? The evidence simply isn’t there. Evolution within a species is easily proven, due to environmental changes, etc. But to say that man came from another species, no matter how hard people argue, is simply unproven. It must be very frustrating for Dawkins enthusiasts, but there you go.

    Now onto my last subject: does God love everyone? If you believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God (which I do, more on that in a bit) then the answer is clearly, “no.” If God loves everyone, then who goes to Hell, and why? This of course is all predicated on the notion that you believe in God at all, which I think most people do. But, if God truly sent His son to die for every man, as so many churches erroneously teach, then who is in Hell? The answer, while not complicated, is very complex. The ones God does not love are in Hell, and were created by God to be destroyed. How does this square with the idea that God is love? Because there is a misunderstanding about the word “love” as it is understood in ancient Greek. We think of love as affection. The Bible is clear that while love can mean affection, more often than not it doesn’t. John 3:16 would be more accurately translated to “For God in this manner gave his commandment to his orderly arrangement that he gave his Son from his own substance that the whole church believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” A bit wordy and inelegant to be sure, but much closer to what is actually said.

    Predestination is true; accepting Christ of your own free will is a lie. This is the time of the great apostasy, the falling away that the Bible warns of. If you are a child of God, he will make you repent and follow him. If not, you’ll die and wake up in Hell for eternity. This is the promise of God.

  7. someguy

    I think we should all stop arguing about religion and just chill. Lets face it, we all have our own beliefs that everyone else thinks is bullshit, so lets all drop the act and carry on with our own life :L Sheesh

  8. Katy Perry in Rolling Stone
    Commented on this photo:

    I wish a girl would walk into my room wearin nothin but a bikini top and unbottomed jean shorts :( sooo hot

  9. Katy Perry in Rolling Stone
    Commented on this photo:

    Other then the tits, I’d pass.

  10. Katy Perry in Rolling Stone
    Commented on this photo:

    Nice eyes, nothing too special about the rest of her.

  11. Trish

    I think there’s a lot of misinformation going on here. There’s something we need to get clear. There’s Christianity, and then there’s religion. They’re two completely different things. Christianity is where you have a relationship with God and you follow Jesus’ teachings in the bible and regularly read the bible. You follow God primarily, not a priest or a pastor. Then there’s religion, which I’m not fond of myself either because I used to be Catholic which turned me atheist. Religion is where people take what they want out of the bible, or they pervert and misconstrue what it says just so they can be different, be superior, make money, or whatever the case may be. It consists of people who have strayed from the true teachings in the bible to follow a person or a way, NOT God’s way which is laid out in the bible.

    I read my bible and follow the teachings of Jesus. I don’t have a religion, I have a relationship with God. I’m not going to beat someone over the head with the bible, I won’t stand on the corner yelling “Repent, for the end is near!”, I won’t hate minorities or homosexuals. The truth is, people have their own choices to make and I can’t change that. I’m Christian and I’m not what you say I am.

    If someone is a true follower of Jesus, they’re not going to be a bigot or a sexist. Christianity can be just as easily perverted as any other thing, TV, movies, politics, religion, etc. If any of us based what we knew about life by what others call themselves as opposed to what we see others doing, we’re labeling ourselves as ignorant.

    There are so many Christian religions out there who have perverted what the bible says to serve their own wants and desires. They pick and choose what they want to follow or to make excuses for negative behaviors that they don’t want to change or they want others to accept.

    I honestly feel sorry for those who think or believe that all Christians exude the characteristics of true Christianity. It’s as stereotypical as any racial joke or comment. It only takes a few to ruin it for the whole, and in Christianity’s case, it has taken a ton to ruin it for the few.

  12. FreakoftheWEEK

    I was feeling a bit guilty about having as little to do with my parents as I possibly can and your post was the perfect reminder.
    Fellow Member of the Crazy Christian Parent’s Club

  13. Downindixie

    So let me get this straight, because YOU’VE never received the power to speak in tongues, its bullshit? Really? How can you discredit something you’ve never experienced yourself? I guess if you’ve never gotten laid pussy isn’t real either, right? You sound twice as narrow minded as the “Christians” you criticize. Stick to speaking on things you know and you just might make it out of your Pastor Father’s basement.

  14. SMB

    …you too, huh, fish?
    …i knew there was a reason we got along so well.

Leave A Comment