Cappyman is a huge Quiverfull freak, too, as should probably be obvious from his sitting on a throne and adopting tons and tons of kids just so he can indoctrinate them and torture his wife into bending over backwards for 'em. It's a shameful thing (even to one of the youngest anti-fundies who joined out of free will) and shouldn't be supported by donating to them and being what they call a "CAP-tain"....

It's best we keep on posting and dissecting Cappyman...and other similar fundies like him.

I also tihnk it's kind of nuts how he was that offended by Matilda.....and by denying males and females being shaped differently. I wonder if Cappyman wears undies in bed, dang it.

Another tihng I once noticed about Cappyman was that he deducted points for female shirts being off but none for males' shirts being off, despite girls getting aroused by seeing pects / manboobs and six-pack abs.....I thought he was untraditional.

And, referencing the Mary Poppins review (or at least what I remember of it).....what kind of person says "we won't go to sleep" instead of "we can't sleep"....?

Heh. I wonder how long it'll take him to write a review deducting points from a movie for "portraying Christians as puritanical misanthropes?" ;/

He's come close once: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The first CAP Alert post highlighted it rather well.

I propose the next post on this site discuss Calder's hypocrisy regarding magic, in which he blasts Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings to smithereens (He lists the talking trees [Ents] as an offense to God. I don't think I need to say any more about that one.) while Mary Poppins doesn't even get a slap on the wrist.

For me, the crown jewel would be walking out on that highly offensive and blatantly Satanic movie vomited from the pits of hell...Matilda. It's Roald Dahl, fercryingoutloud.

It seemed rather weaselly to me, like claiming that the Bible is much less vivid than a movie. Which means that a Bible movie can easily score VERY low. And the CAP guys were honest enough to acknowledge that in their ratings of some Bible movies.

What, in his eyes, is so objectionable about the idea that Jesus could have been married and had children?

The only thing that comes to mind is that the posterchild Jesus prophecy in the Old Testament, Isaiah 53, says

By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
Isaiah 53:8, NIV

But that's one translation (others just vaguely talk "his generation"), in a chapter that is already fairly heavily twisted to fit; so I have no doubt it could be interpreted away if it came to it.

"As a parent, I can only say that your site has given me plenty to think about. I sincerely hope you'll still be doing these reviews when my daughter is a teenager--I'm looking forward to sitting with her and mocking the site together." ^.^

Not surprisingly, he believes that he will succeed where those two gentlemen had failed, turning all of humanity into his family with him the father-figure. In effect, a theocratic world government with Rev. Moon as its leader.

One marvels at how the Religious Right puts up with his heresies and conceits. He is on their side on moral and political issues, and he has been willing to spend a LOT of money on supporting them, like financing the Washington Times and bailing out Jerry Falwell's "Liberty University". So such support might make them look the other way, as many right-wing Protestants have done for Catholicism, and to a lesser extent, Mormonism.