I was scanning the Community Events calendar of the October 1, 2008 edition of the North Shore Today this afternoon, and this event caught my eye:
Sunday, October 5
Blessing of the Animals. A Blessing of the Animals will take place at the Congregational Church of Huntington at 30 Washington Drive in Centerport at noon. Bring your pets on a leash or crated.
What the hell is the point of that? What do participating pet owners expect from this? Will their dogs live longer? Be less likely to piss on the daisies? Be friendlier to the mail man?
Talk about a ridiculous gimmick! The real absurdity is believing that whatever pastor is bestowing these blessings actually has some kind of connection to the creator of the universe and that his beseechments and intercessions will result in god bestowing something extra special on the animals being "blessed" that other animals will lack.
Monthly Archive for September, 2008
Recently I received the following comment on my blog about The Anti-Vaccination Movement from what appears to be a fellow atheist; yet, I really find it difficult to understand how someone who has either overcome their childhood religious indoctrination or who has always been an atheist can be so gullible when it comes to conspiracy theories and downright quackery. I guess I wrongly assumed that being an atheist was synonymous with being a rationalist.
Anyway…due to the length of my response, I've decided to post it in a blog of it's own. I will direct the original commenter to this blog to give him the opportunity to respond.
From Ty:
Excuse me but its the mainstream media that brainwashes the public into believing vaccines are completely safe. Who benefits from vaccines? The drug companies like Merck thats who. The pharmaceutical companies become filthy rich by selling drugs and vaccines that make people ill. Vaccines are also part of the global elites depopulation agenda. If vaccines are so safe then why do vaccine companies need immunity from liability for harming and killing people? I guess you don't give a crap about all the people who've gotten diseases or died from vaccines.
Dr. Leonard Horowitz who is a brilliant doctor will tell you everything you need to know about vaccines.
My Response:
Are you referring to the same Dr. Leonard Horowitz who “provides an unparalleled peek into the Creator’s technology [and] unearths compelling scientific evidence of your spiritual existence” in his 2006 book Walk On Water? The very same book which claims to, MOMUMENTALLY PRESENT THE WISDOM OF “INTELLIGENT DESIGN” VERSUS THE LUNANCY OF CHEMICAL TOXICITY, PHARMACEUTICAL SORCERY, AND EVOLUTION OF THE SPECIES.
Anyone unfamiliar with this person should visit his website below.
http://www.tetrahedron.org
I wonder how much money Dr. Horowitz has made through his publications over the years. How many people have suffered and died because of the misinformation he spreads throughout the word?
You’re response here is obviously an emotional one which is not based on facts or the scientific and medical consensus.
Ok, now that I have that off my chest, let’s discuss what you had to say before made my head explode by referring to this charlatan as “a brilliant doctor.”
In another article from the same issue of Skeptical Inquirer, Dr. Richard G. Judelsohn, MD, gives an excellent presentation which summarizes everything that is wrong with your argument in Vaccine Safety: Vaccines Are One of Public Health's Great Accomplishments.
I quote:
Over the past decade, the public has been presented with a large amount of information about the safety of vaccines. Among the reasons for this interest is the widespread success of routine, universal immunization of infants and children, beginning in the 1940s. Previously common, dangerous, handicapping, potentially fatal diseases (vaccine-preventable diseases) have been wiped out with this policy.
As the last century drew to a close, immunization was declared the greatest public health achievement in the United States in the twentieth century.Now let me ask you this Ty, are all those Family Physicians, Obstetricians and Gynecologists in league with the pharmaceutical companies? They would have to be to make this grand conspiracy you speak of true. In fact—at the least—ninety percent of all scientists, doctors, nurse practitioners, laboratory technicians, etc …would also have to be in league with the drug companies and the “global elites”—not to mention my own wife and many other health professionals I know personally—before most of Dr. Horowitz’ arguments could have any validity.
The list of licensed and recommended vaccines has been growing, and not just for infants and children. There are now schedules from professional societies, such as the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and public agencies (e.g., the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–CDC and most state health departments) that indicate what vaccines should be given and when for adolescents, adults, and specific vulnerable populations.
The considerable focus on vaccines and their safety in our information-overloaded society is not surprising, with a surplus of articles in magazines, books, parenting guides, and on the Internet, and stories on radio and television. While these occasionally highlight the benefits of immunization, “No One Got Sick or Died from a Vaccine-Preventable Disease Today” is not a very exciting story, so more often the emphasis in the media is on speculation that a vaccine caused a health problem. Furthermore, the widespread availability of litigation and liberal tort in the U.S. has encouraged lawsuits claiming harm from vaccines. Finally, it’s human nature to assume cause and effect when something bad happens, so a vaccination is an attractive target when administered before the onset of a medical condition.As Dr. Judelsohn explains, it’s not the “media that brainwashes the public into believing vaccines are completely safe” Ty, but the exact opposite. Scientific evidence and a long track record of vaccine safety is what gives most people confidence that vaccines are predominantly safe not the media. And it is “public policy based on junk beliefs, misinformation, fear, and mass hysteria" propagated by the media that allows charlatans like “Dr.” Leonard Horowitz to thrive and feed of the credulity of others.
Unfortunately, most of the public receives a lot of health information from lay sources rather than their physicians. Professional knowledge of immunization is grounded in science—microbiology, immunology, epidemiology, and statistics. Vaccines are licensed by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) only when proven safe and effective. Recommendations for use are promulgated by committees of scientific experts composed of academics, clinicians, and other caregivers who are passionately devoted to our citizens’ health and safety. The committees’ conclusions, and the rationale for them, are shared with practicing physicians, who are the most reliable source of information for patients. This process is the foundation that has led to the conclusion that licensed vaccines are safe, and the fears that vaccines are harmful are unfounded.
Many of us recall that only two generations ago we had schoolmates who limped or had withered arms due to the paralytic polio they were infected with. That disease is now extinct in the U.S. because of the universal use of polio vaccine. During my training, I cared for children made deaf from measles, infants blind and retarded from rubella, and those who died from bacteria like pneumococcus and meningococcus. With vaccination, those conditions no longer occur. As a physician in my early years of practice, the threat of infection with bacteria called Haemophilus influenza type B (Hib) loomed large for my patients and their families, the outcomes of brain damage or death being distinct possibilities. A vaccine was invented, adopted as policy, and given to U.S. infants and children. I’m pleased to say I no longer worry about Hib infection.
Despite scientific proof and a long track record of vaccine safety, we see public policy based on junk beliefs, misinformation, fear, and mass hysteria. In 2006, a number of legislative bodies passed, and executives signed, bills prohibiting use of vaccines containing thimerosal. From a practical perspective, these restrictions mean little, since all but a few influenza vaccines do not contain thimerosal. But such policies send a bad message: that the vaccines that have virtually eradicated many diseases, constituting one of the greatest public health accomplishments of the past century, are dangerous. Furthermore, these policies denigrate our informed medical and scientific communities. This is a disservice to our citizens and endangers us all.
Peace, Love and All that other Good Stuff...TPO
Related Links:
This is an anecdote about some protesters in front of Planned Parenthood today. Hilarity and ignorance ensues.
Preface for those who don’t know about Planned Parenthood of America (PPA), or just don’t know that much about it, maybe with misconceptions:
PPA is a nationwide organization with the goal of promoting sexual health, birth control, controlling the spread of STD’s, and confidential health care for women and men. It was originally founded with Eugenic-based goals in mind, but in its state today it stands as one of the few rabidly pro-choice bastions in the country. Through PPA, you can get a perscription for all types of birth control and family planning options, as well as emergency contraception. You can also have your yearly gynocologist visits, and there are men’s healthcare services too. However, you can also get abortions there, which makes it a huge target for the Pro-Lifers and Christian organizations. They like to paint PPA in harsh colors, saying that it promotes killing children and murder, is the “world’s largest abortion chain”, and ignoring anything that doesn’t promote their own pet theory. I go there because it is friendly, helpful, confidential, and I believe that it is one of the few organizations in the nation that deeply and honestly cares about its mission and puts patient healthcare and well being first. Not many places get that kind of support from me, and despite the bad rap PPA gets, what you may have heard, I can assure you that its all propaganda. Now, on to the story:
This morning I got up early to try and get a walk-in at PPM. The ride down was uneventful, but the weather was magnificent. Fall is starting to emerge in a tangible way, making for excellent biking weather and a bit of optimism, despite waking up at 6 am to turn in everyones’ rent checks. As I locked my beater up at Shaw’s across the street, I noticed a wooden sign propped up in front of the curving facade of the Planned Parenthood building. There was a picture of a baby’s smiling face with the word “LIFE” printed in large bold yellow lettering underneath. An old lady was milling about, waiting for something. I scoffed at the sign and went in to wait. Everything went smoothly and I got a nice chunk of Age of Reason read. Then I went to leave.
{For extra irony, keep in mind that I’m wearing a Necrophobic shirt with a flaming church on the front (This album cover).}
There were three protesters, yelling to passerbys, thrusting forth pamphlets, and a model of a developing baby next to their silly LIFE sign. One of them saw me leave the building, and I wasn’t three steps away from the door when she jumped me. She was easily well over 65, had one yellowed buck front tooth missing, and a frizzy, curly mop of hair. Her hand was full of rosaries and pamplets and she looked at me with a clear sense of purpose, even with the misty, shallow eyes of a brainwashed sheep.
“Please, take one, they’re no charge, hand made by a 97 year old woman, you can’t say no to a 97 year old woman!” She lifted the rosaries in her hand slightly. I felt a twinge of pity and disgust at the same time, thinking of a nearly century-old woman stringing beads for these people to promote their mislead, ignorant cause. What a waste.
“I… I’m not Christian,” I said; the most polite thing that came to mind. I had set it in my mind in the waiting room that I’d engage these people if I had time, but waves of revulsion were churning in my stomach, urging me to get on my bike and pedal away as fast as I could. As I tried to leave it at that, she tried another approach, I presume the more “secular” one. It was one of these types of sappy stories (One,Two) where the developing fetus is personified and the rational skills of a child many many times their age is juxtaposed on them. Shock value and emotional games, that’s all they are. I had to read one aloud to my CCD kids once and pretend to be Pro-Life… nearly made me sick.
As she began to say what the pamphlet was about, I interrupted her to tell her I’d already read it, and explained why I thought it was nonsense. “…children do not develop complex thought and long term memory until they are over a year old, this narrative is–”
“Well you should look at this, St Rachel’s. Its a group for women who have had abortions and are trying to cope. My friend had two abortions and she really regretted it [me: maybe she shouldn't have made that choice... *thinking* Holy shit, two?? Didn't she learn the first time!?] so she went to a priest and he told her to name the children, pray to them in heaven, and apologize, then pray to God, ask his forgiveness and for help.”
“Well, I’m not going to go to any priest, what about women who don’t believe in that sort of thing, don’t they get a support group?” I scoffed, even more repulsed. Not that I intend on needing any sort of abortion support group, it just bothers me everything like that is geared towards God-fearing Christians.
She seemed confused that I would ask that sort of thing, I can’t recall her reply right now but it resulted in me angrily retorting, “Well, I don’t believe in your God!”
Her response to this blatant outburst was to say, “Well what you need to do if you don’t believe is sit down, and be open, and say ‘God, I know you’re not likely there but I’m listening’, and wait for him to reveal himself to you…”
“Why would I pray to something that isn’t there??!!” I scoffed, giving her a confused glare.
She spread her arms wide and began waving at the people and the street, “how can you say he isn’t there, when all you need to do is look around!” As she met my gaze her eyes were wide and childlike, there was a bit of wonder, vignetted by a shroud of ignorance. Unfortunately for her, she picked the wrong person to start down that path with…
“Look lady, stop, you’re using a logical fallacy called “Begging the Question”, you can’t state both your conclusion and answer in the same–”
“I WILL WIN THIS ARGUMENT!”
While I had no doubts in my ability to completely trash any argument that this lady might fish up, I wondered if she had any idea at this point who she’d picked to take on. What would be her cop out? I snickered, “Oh? How?”
“I WILL PRAY FOR YOU!”
This did not have the desired effect. I began to laugh.
“What is your name so I can pray for you?!”
I looked her in the eyes and said, “Don’t waste your breath.”
I have to give her some credit though, she knew I was being serious and wasn’t going to tell her, so she went along with it, waving her arms and praying/yelling as though “Dont Waste Your Breath” was actually my name.
“OH GOD, PLEASE TAKE DON’T WASTE YOUR BREATH IN, I KNOW HOW MUCH YOU LOVE HER AND WANT TO HOLD HER CLOSE TO YOUR CHEST! *etc etc*”
As she obviously realised that I was a lost cause, she tried to wrap it up with that, telling me how much she and God “loved me”, then we began to go our separate ways. I had to have the last word of course, and say what I really wanted to say to these absurd fools, thinking they’re doing good as they bind us head and foot.
“STOP TRYING TO TAKE AWAY WOMEN’S RIGHTS”, I screamed, so that the people nearby could hear a voice of protest over the drone of morning traffic. She called back again that God loved me, and tried to get away by leaping on some poor passerbys, who tried to ignore her and refuse her pamplets and beads.
As I watched for another short moment, neither she or her partners successfully handed out a single pamplet.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9c3e3df6-3c32-4c4d-a916-b63501ab18c0)
A good little piece on why it makes sense to still be scared, without the fear mongering.
Hey remember that whole thing with prosecutors being fired illegally and whatnot?
Who is this John Kerry fella and why wasn't he around four years ago when that guy with a similar name ran for president?
And here is a really random comic strip.
Hey remember that whole thing with prosecutors being fired illegally and whatnot?
"Our investigation found significant evidence that political partisan considerations were an important factor in the removal of several . . . U.S. attorneys."Hmm... that could get interesting, although I doubt anyone will pay attention.
Who is this John Kerry fella and why wasn't he around four years ago when that guy with a similar name ran for president?
As for McCain's role in all this... John Kerry summed it up best: "He said he was going to interrupt his campaign to come down and save the negotiations. Most people believe is that what he did was interrupt the negotiations to come down and save his campaign."Amazing. Other than it hurts to hear him have some balls when they were so lacking a few years back when he really needed them.
And here is a really random comic strip.
have no idea how the economy works. (did I fool you for a sec?) Which is fine for a guy who has no significant debt and about a hundred bucks in the bank, its not ok for the next president who it would appear is going to be handed the largest financial crisis since the great one. The real point of that is to reiterate that I don't have any background in economics at all, theres a significant portion of the pretty basic terminology that I simply smile and nod at.
Now that I have that out of the way, again, I'll get to my point. Apparently right before the fail of the bail the fed pumped a few hundred billion into the banking system. There's a few different numbers on here but it sounds like they increased cash to the banks by 300 billion to bring it up to either 450 or 630 billion, by trading with other national banks. Seems a little weird to me that they wanted the taxpayers to shell out 700 billion if the fed still had the ability to do that on its own. Of course the article also says that the Fed's "balance sheet is about to explode." I don't know much about this shit, but I'm pretty sure that if the Federal Reserve gets in financial trouble then we're in serious trouble.
The roof
the roof
the roof is on fire
but we don't need no water
let the motherfucker burn
burn motherfucker
burn
-Bloodhound Gang
Now that I have that out of the way, again, I'll get to my point. Apparently right before the fail of the bail the fed pumped a few hundred billion into the banking system. There's a few different numbers on here but it sounds like they increased cash to the banks by 300 billion to bring it up to either 450 or 630 billion, by trading with other national banks. Seems a little weird to me that they wanted the taxpayers to shell out 700 billion if the fed still had the ability to do that on its own. Of course the article also says that the Fed's "balance sheet is about to explode." I don't know much about this shit, but I'm pretty sure that if the Federal Reserve gets in financial trouble then we're in serious trouble.
The roof
the roof
the roof is on fire
but we don't need no water
let the motherfucker burn
burn motherfucker
burn
-Bloodhound Gang
Theres a recent poll that has Obama with a three point lead in Florida (with a 3.2 point margin of error) but I have to wonder if thats among registered voters, likely voters, or voters likely to not be disenfranchised? There are significant differences between those groups.
It's quite simple, if you want to be a tax exempt organization, religious or secular, then you cannot endorse candidates. If you do then you're political and you have to pay taxes. So like I've said before, pastors should feel free to proselytize for their candidates, but they lose their tax-exempt status. We could really use the tax revenue from those mega-churches and their sheep were all going to vote the same anyway so go ahead and become political, we need the money.
Ok random ass shit time, via Fark. A girl in Russia called her friend ugly and that she would never get a boyfriend. I think she's right but not cause of looks. The girls reaction? She pulled out a pair of tweezers and proceeded to stab her friend over 100 times, killing her friend. Even if she gets out of jail, I'm guessing she might find it tough to find a guy. "Do these pants make my ass look fat?" you'd risk your life answering that question.
I don't know how accurate this statement is but I received it as a chain letter today.
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.
My confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees.
I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.
In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman
He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'
In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray
O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public
discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet?
Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.
My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,
Ben Stein
My Response:
In an interesting event inspired by Richard Dawkins at Beyond Belief 2006, Jonathon Keats has built a temple of science which he has named The Atheon. Hmmmm... For the full story, click here.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has filed another lawsuit against the Department of Defense and Secretary Gates alleging that the DoD has violated Spc. Dustin Chalker's constitutional rights not to be coerced into religious services. Here are a few excerpts from the lawsuit:
I've covered most of these church/state violations in this blog before, but there are so many egregious violations listed in the lawsuit. Here are some of the worst examples of the overt Christian proselytization that Spc Chalker has run into as detailed in the complaint:
I wonder what would happen if he replaces the religious references with race references, explicitly saying that one race is better than another? I think that he would quickly be replaced and would have to retire in shame. Why is one form of bigotry permitted and the other is not? No form of bigotry should be allowed expression in any official presentation. Perhaps having a last name of Bishop is getting to the general's head. He is confusing his position as a military leader with a religious leader. Christian supremacy is as bad a position as white supremacy.
As if this was bad enough, there is worse, especially for female military members. Look at some of the items used as training material in the Army's Strong Bonds program:
They seem to hate sex. Perhaps since they aren't getting any, they don't want the rest of us to have sex as well. They also seem to imply that non-Christian women are drug abusing sluts. Any why are the materials that are for women focused only about sex? Aren't women capable of being more than virgins, baby-making machines or whores?
It seems that these repressed prigs are continuing the obsession with other's private sex lives by controlling women in the service. As a female veteran Air Force officer, I'm highly offended by such actions. As an atheist, I'm also highly offended by the overt statements that I'm some sort of second-class human. And this is only a small sampling from the lawsuit.
There is so much in this lawsuit, and this is only the start. So far, MRFF has only put together 2 lawsuits. They have almost 10,000 complaints about religious discrimination in the services. Even if only a fraction of "tormentees" are willing to step forward, I foresee lawsuits for many years, until the DoD is willing to make drastic changes in how they approach the issue of religion in the services. What MRFF needs to do next is start filing lawsuits from other Christians who also have been treated like shit by these literalist fundamentalist Christians. Way to go MRFF!
The legal issue raised herein is whether the plaintiff, a member of the United States Army, may be required to attend military functions and/or formations that include sectarian Christian prayers.No soldier should be forced to attend religious ceremonies and have to pretend to worship in order to make promotions. If the Army wants to have services, then those should be optional and held before or after the non-religious ceremony. Why does the Army have to combine the two? There is no non-religious reason for them to do so.
...
Plaintiff Chalker has sought relief from mandatory attendance at the subject functions/formations through his chain of command and the equal opportunity process. Neither have yielded satisfactory results.
I've covered most of these church/state violations in this blog before, but there are so many egregious violations listed in the lawsuit. Here are some of the worst examples of the overt Christian proselytization that Spc Chalker has run into as detailed in the complaint:
Mandatory Attendance at U.S.A.F. Base Commander's Sectarian Call. During March, 2008, a program approved by Lt. Gen. Rod Bishop was presented at a commander's call at RAF Lakenheath, England. This commander's call was a mandatory function for an estimated 1,000 service members. The Powerpoint version presentation was emailed to an estimated 4,000-5,000 service members.
The "Spiritual Fitness" part of the presentation, given by Air Force Chaplain Capt. Christian Biscotti, was titled "A New Approach to Suicide Prevention: Developing Purpose-Driven Airmen." This presentation is just one example of the recent
shift (since 2005) to basing suicide prevention programs on Christian teachings, the most often used being Rick Warren's "The Purpose Driven Life".
In some cases, including the Lakenheath presentation, creationism is also incorporated. One chart in the Lakenheath presentation, for example, presents "3 Levels of Purpose". For Category I, the "Purpose" is "God Given", the "Idealogy" is "Religious," the "Motivation" is "The Love of God," and the example of a person who had this ideology is George Washington. The Category II "Purpose" is "Man Given," with "Philanthropy" as the ideology, "The Love of Man" as the motivation, with Karl Marx as the example. Category III is "Self Given" for purpose, "Humanism" for ideology, "The Love of Self" for motivation, and Charles Darwin as the example. The slide ends with Category I is the most beneficial, because if you love God (in a majority of world religions) , you'll love man and yourself."Yeah, lets just assume all of the thousand members in attendance are evangelical Christians. I'm sure that about 25% of the audience are not even Christian at all. So much for respecting America's religious plurality that is reflected in military life. Lt.Gen Bishop certainly does not show respect for the men and women who serve under him. He explicitly states that the non-religious service members are not as good as the evangelical Christian ones.
I wonder what would happen if he replaces the religious references with race references, explicitly saying that one race is better than another? I think that he would quickly be replaced and would have to retire in shame. Why is one form of bigotry permitted and the other is not? No form of bigotry should be allowed expression in any official presentation. Perhaps having a last name of Bishop is getting to the general's head. He is confusing his position as a military leader with a religious leader. Christian supremacy is as bad a position as white supremacy.
Another slide titled "Contrasting Theories of Hope, Ultimate Theories Explaining Our Existence," has two columns, the first titled "Chance," and the second "Design," comparing Charles Darwin, creationism, and religion are also part of a chart comparing the former Soviet Union to the United States, concluding that "Naturalism/Evolution/Atheism" leads to people being "in bondage" and having "no hope," while theism leads to "People of Freedom" and "People of hope/destiny." After several more slides like these, the presentation continues with a slide titled "Christian's Message," and a slide with an image of a man looking upwards with his hands outstretched and the caption "Please open up both of your hands to receive this powerful tool."Unbelievable, after denigrating about 20% of the audience (remember that the military has a larger atheist/agnostic population that in civilian life), he ends with overt proselytization. How would you feel to sit in that audience and be told that you are some sort of second class person? Then he ends his talk with the message that Christians are better people. What a load of utter bullshit. And evangelists wonder why the ratio of freethinkers is higher in the military. Have they ever given a thought to how they come across to non-Christians and other Christians?
As if this was bad enough, there is worse, especially for female military members. Look at some of the items used as training material in the Army's Strong Bonds program:
Holy Shit! I don't see any listings for men to keep chaste. Why the double standard? It looks like they want to push this fundamentalist Christian garbage of submissive, virginal female soldiers. What a load of sexist bullshit. Why the fixation on sex? And why is being a virgin defined as "purity"? And what do they mean by "virginity"? Does the "pure Christian woman" have to have an intact hymen? Does having a busted cherry make a woman a second-class female, a slut, or a whore? I guess this explains the increase in anal sex among girls who take the"purity pledge.""Every Woman, Every Day," (365 Christian readings and sermons about "sexual purity")
"Every Woman's Battle," (a book of Christian sermons, and Bible verses to "Discover God's plan for sexual and emotional fulfillment.")
"Every Woman's Battle Promise Book," (a "daily devotional" of Bible verses to support the reader in a quest for "sexual integrity")
"The Thrill of the Chaste," by Dawn Eden. The author is described on the back cover as "Jewish-born" and throughout the book as a "former agnostic Jew." The book describes in detail how she led a highly promiscuous and drug abusing lifestyle until she had a "born again experience" and "realized for the first time ... that [Jesus] as truly God's son." The book is filled (almost every page) with Bible verses and with the author proselytizing Christianity. Chaplain Johnson recommended the book multiple times during the training.
They seem to hate sex. Perhaps since they aren't getting any, they don't want the rest of us to have sex as well. They also seem to imply that non-Christian women are drug abusing sluts. Any why are the materials that are for women focused only about sex? Aren't women capable of being more than virgins, baby-making machines or whores?
It seems that these repressed prigs are continuing the obsession with other's private sex lives by controlling women in the service. As a female veteran Air Force officer, I'm highly offended by such actions. As an atheist, I'm also highly offended by the overt statements that I'm some sort of second-class human. And this is only a small sampling from the lawsuit.
There is so much in this lawsuit, and this is only the start. So far, MRFF has only put together 2 lawsuits. They have almost 10,000 complaints about religious discrimination in the services. Even if only a fraction of "tormentees" are willing to step forward, I foresee lawsuits for many years, until the DoD is willing to make drastic changes in how they approach the issue of religion in the services. What MRFF needs to do next is start filing lawsuits from other Christians who also have been treated like shit by these literalist fundamentalist Christians. Way to go MRFF!
An excellent post from Anarchy in Your Head entitled, "Anarchism, the New Atheism":
Go and read the rest of this excellent essay.
I can remember a time in my own lifetime when freedom of religion was frequently interpreted to mean you could be whatever flavor of Christian you wanted to be. In time, the language of religious freedom generally started to include non-Christian religions. It was still more time before the notion of religious freedom began to include the notion of freedom from religion altogether. Atheism used to be a much more fringe viewpoint, so much so that many people didn’t even fully understand what it meant. Atheists with the courage to speak up back when it was still a largely fringe viewpoint played a significant role in promoting freedom of religion. This applies even to those who, while not atheists themselves, held minority and perhaps unpopular religious views.
...
I see many similarities now in the emergence of anarchy as a personal view. It still appears to be a fringe viewpoint. However, just as I suspect there are and were a number of atheists who didn’t label themselves or desire to speak up and subject themselves to ridicule by a theist majority, there may now be many closet anarchists. The word “anarchy” still means chaos to the general public largely ignorant of the subject...
Go and read the rest of this excellent essay.
This is simply brilliant. So brilliant I won't even quote it, he deserves the pageviews.
It's about the ADF's Freedom Pulpit (or whatever the crap the stupid scam was called) yesterday, and how it's just a giant stunt for them to get tons of money, whether or not they win.
If it's true, and that's how they actually think, I have to say they're damn clever. Much more so than I would have guessed, given that they're the ADF. But thinking about them in the business of scaring stupid gullible Christians into giving up their money, it's very elucidating. Maybe they don't believe their rhetoric, maybe they know it's a scam...
It would certainly restore some of my faith in humanity. (Restore it because I'd rather people exploit others than actually be idiots.)
It's about the ADF's Freedom Pulpit (or whatever the crap the stupid scam was called) yesterday, and how it's just a giant stunt for them to get tons of money, whether or not they win.
If it's true, and that's how they actually think, I have to say they're damn clever. Much more so than I would have guessed, given that they're the ADF. But thinking about them in the business of scaring stupid gullible Christians into giving up their money, it's very elucidating. Maybe they don't believe their rhetoric, maybe they know it's a scam...
It would certainly restore some of my faith in humanity. (Restore it because I'd rather people exploit others than actually be idiots.)
______________________________________________________
Harlem Renaissance to Harlem gentrification.
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
"Tango in Harlem" by 'Touch and Go!'
"My basic objection to religion is not that it isn't true; I like plenty of things that aren't true. It's that religion grants its adherents malign, intoxicating and morally corrosive sensations. Destroying intellectual freedom is always evil, but only religion makes doing evil feel quite so good." - Philip Pullman
I haven't given up blogging - I'm just keeping very busy indeed. My mother even emailed me wondering what was wrong.
I haven't given up blogging - I'm just keeping very busy indeed. My mother even emailed me wondering what was wrong.
If anybody reads my blog posts they will certainly come away thinking I have a bone to pick with (and a vehemence toward) organized religion. However I do understand and VEHEMENTLY uphold their right to believe what they want to believe as spelled out in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Government does and should have a hands off approach in regard to religion.
On a side note: my blog is MY blog. It's a place where I express my freedom of speech without abridgment.
It resides in the public sphere (though Google could at any point censure Ungodly Cynic if they so choose through the TOC).
It is absolutely not the responsibility of government to dictate religious faith to it's citizenry. Nor is it mandated in the constitution. If by chance anybody disagrees with this they had better get organized and petition the government that Congress amend the First Amendment to strike "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" from the US constitution.
Can one be so sure that our Congress will indeed respect any one establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof if these words were stricken from our constitution? It would not be a win-win situation for the majority "faithful" who may find fault with this clause; which is what Jefferson referred to in his "letters". The first amendment is what MAKES the United States a secular society.
If by chance there are those individuals out there (I don't care if you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Pastafarian) who see fit to disregard the First Amendment, see fit to attempt to circumvent it or attempt to rationalize it or even seek to have it amended in order to discount those phrases I hold so dearly then you are mine enemy!
Enemy. Nemesis. Somebody I would invariably consider anathema to standing alongside the ideal of true freedom. Speech.
Within a theocratic society one is shuttered and barred from public discourse, unless of course such discourse falls in line with the State Religion at hand. Do we really want to live in a society that refuses to accept one religion over another? Do we want to live in a society that forces our children to pray to ONE particular god when their parents worship a different god?
One could argue that a secular society is disdainful or indeed a strangling of religious belief. I counter that it is just the opposite! Exactly the opposite! A hands off, secular, society espouses the freedom for individuals to believe and worship however they see fit with no repercussions (privately).
Publicly? It's fair game! You see, there is a vast difference in private belief and public opinion.
Once one throws out their private belief into the public sphere one is going to have every Tom, Dick and Harry scrutinizing it. Is this so wrong? Not in the least (as espoused within the First Amendment). It is quite healthy in my opinion to have ones privately held beliefs questioned and scrutinized (even my own; however impenetrable they may seem to be...and they are, I must attest).
So what would one want by battering down this wall of separation of church and state? An imposition of ONE particular ideal onto the rest of us. Is that freedom?
Here we go again...
Secularism is an ideal, right? It's been imposed onto the "rest of us"...
Damn straight!!! It sure has been imposed; by the United States Constitution (in the First Amendment)!!! Those who wish to erode this separation are living in Medieval times and absolutely do not respect this concept of our First Amendment! The great experiment that IS the United Stated of America.
Who's the fucking PATRIOT!?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Government does and should have a hands off approach in regard to religion.
On a side note: my blog is MY blog. It's a place where I express my freedom of speech without abridgment.
It resides in the public sphere (though Google could at any point censure Ungodly Cynic if they so choose through the TOC).
It is absolutely not the responsibility of government to dictate religious faith to it's citizenry. Nor is it mandated in the constitution. If by chance anybody disagrees with this they had better get organized and petition the government that Congress amend the First Amendment to strike "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" from the US constitution.
Can one be so sure that our Congress will indeed respect any one establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof if these words were stricken from our constitution? It would not be a win-win situation for the majority "faithful" who may find fault with this clause; which is what Jefferson referred to in his "letters". The first amendment is what MAKES the United States a secular society.
If by chance there are those individuals out there (I don't care if you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Pastafarian) who see fit to disregard the First Amendment, see fit to attempt to circumvent it or attempt to rationalize it or even seek to have it amended in order to discount those phrases I hold so dearly then you are mine enemy!
Enemy. Nemesis. Somebody I would invariably consider anathema to standing alongside the ideal of true freedom. Speech.
Within a theocratic society one is shuttered and barred from public discourse, unless of course such discourse falls in line with the State Religion at hand. Do we really want to live in a society that refuses to accept one religion over another? Do we want to live in a society that forces our children to pray to ONE particular god when their parents worship a different god?
One could argue that a secular society is disdainful or indeed a strangling of religious belief. I counter that it is just the opposite! Exactly the opposite! A hands off, secular, society espouses the freedom for individuals to believe and worship however they see fit with no repercussions (privately).
Publicly? It's fair game! You see, there is a vast difference in private belief and public opinion.
Once one throws out their private belief into the public sphere one is going to have every Tom, Dick and Harry scrutinizing it. Is this so wrong? Not in the least (as espoused within the First Amendment). It is quite healthy in my opinion to have ones privately held beliefs questioned and scrutinized (even my own; however impenetrable they may seem to be...and they are, I must attest).
So what would one want by battering down this wall of separation of church and state? An imposition of ONE particular ideal onto the rest of us. Is that freedom?
Here we go again...
Secularism is an ideal, right? It's been imposed onto the "rest of us"...
Damn straight!!! It sure has been imposed; by the United States Constitution (in the First Amendment)!!! Those who wish to erode this separation are living in Medieval times and absolutely do not respect this concept of our First Amendment! The great experiment that IS the United Stated of America.
Who's the fucking PATRIOT!?
Hopefully the facts about Shara Palin and her fanatical ideology revealed thus far are enough to cause even the moderately reasonable person to either vote for a third party candidate or to vote for Obama. If not, then please take a few minutes of your time to peruse the following information and to watch the two short videos below.
I've talked about evangelical pastors targeting African children in "Witch Hunts" in the past and I think it is a very serious issue. Unfortunately I've heard both NPR news and several other news outlets making very light of Palins relationship with this self professed witch hunter.
Now I, like many of you, enjoy all the satire and the late night parodies of this woman. For example, take a look at this pic which pokes fun at the very issue I writing about now.
![[spray-bottle3.jpg]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ORNrFTjnH38/SNSefjbgvMI/AAAAAAAAAWY/TqH4ziRR7aM/s1600/spray-bottle3.jpg)
This is very funny. If fact, I find it freaking hilarious and yet when I stop and think about what this pics really tells us, I am disgusted by the knowledge that this woman could soon be our Vice President, next in line to the Commander In Chief.
This is not propaganda like the Muslim slurs against Obama , or the Bush smears about McCain fathering an illigitment child back when they ran against each other, this is factual information you can decipher for yourself..
If you are a conservative who is not also a religious extremist, surely you can find a better ticket to vote for than than McCain/Palin. If you are a Libertarian, I know you can find a better ticket to vote for. If you are a liberal like me, well...you should already be convinced.
Peace, love and all that other good stuff...TPO
From Times Online:
The pastor whose prayer Sarah Palin says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells. Read more
In this new video Sarah Palin is shown accepting a special supernatural protection from witchcraft from Thomas Muthee, who also promoted Palin's campaign for Governor as a way to infiltrate the government with the right wing religious agenda of the Assembly of God.
Also see:
Donohue defends Palin because witchcraft is real...
Much thanks all those linked to above!
I’m reading a book about sex.Well, let’s just clarify that the book is about “sex and the evolution of human nature”.
The writing is packed with information, is a little rambling, and could be confusing to someone with no education in biology, but it is interesting nonetheless.
I found the following particularly interesting – given my utter disdain for the manipulative underbelly of religion.…...
Here are is a short list of cool and interesting things from exhibition tables:
If you are an atheist and have kids, this is a fascinating new concept. Charlie's Playhouse, http://www.charliesplayhouse.com/, brings the history of evolution to life. All the games and toys are inspired by liberation. They also had a baby outfit with a clever saying, "I was made from Natural Selection". Also, they have a very clever name for the company, see if you can figure out the connection. It stumped me at first, but once I figured it out, thought it was quite genius.
Enlighten the Vote, http://www.enlightenthevote.com, is a strong advocate for the separation of church and state, and seeks to support secularists and constitutionalists alike. They used to be called something else (which escapes my memory at the moment), like Godless Something. But the new name reflects a more alluring and inviting message, that both even believers may support. Not the separation of individuals to God (if you so choose) but the separation of the state imposing religious ideology on a nation.
Andrew Newberg and Mark Robert Waldman are coming out with a new book in 2009, How God Changes Your Brain. It's based from a neuroscientist perspective. Interesting note, they were actually conducting a survey of AAI attendees, with various God/Godless questions, and even asked us to draw a PICTURE of God. I drew nothing, but labeled it [This space intentionally left blank], for obvious reasons.
Though not exactly Atheist related, I thought this thing was hilarious. It's a Bill of Rights, made of metal, http://www.securityedition.com. At an airport, when you pass through the metal detectors, it will set them off, resulting in a search. They search you for the metal object, you "Bill of Rights" are taken away, and hopefully your "Bill of Rights" will be given back.
Paul Martin, http://www.aspiringatheist.com, created a folk music atheist inspired album. I was talking to Paul, and we was saying that seeing Greydon Square perform at the last AAI Convention was one of his inspiration to making this album. I really like Track 2, Happy Heathen, here is a sample line:
I wasn't born a Christian,
I wasn't born a Jew,
I wasn't born a Muslim,
I wasn't born Hindu.
I was born free to think,
to question and to reason,
I was born free to think,
I was born a Happy Heathen
This is by no means an all inclusive list, there were tons more cool stuff.
I am going to submit each of these links individually, to see how the atheist spot community votes each up or down.
If you are an atheist and have kids, this is a fascinating new concept. Charlie's Playhouse, http://www.charliesplayhouse.com/, brings the history of evolution to life. All the games and toys are inspired by liberation. They also had a baby outfit with a clever saying, "I was made from Natural Selection". Also, they have a very clever name for the company, see if you can figure out the connection. It stumped me at first, but once I figured it out, thought it was quite genius.
Enlighten the Vote, http://www.enlightenthevote.com, is a strong advocate for the separation of church and state, and seeks to support secularists and constitutionalists alike. They used to be called something else (which escapes my memory at the moment), like Godless Something. But the new name reflects a more alluring and inviting message, that both even believers may support. Not the separation of individuals to God (if you so choose) but the separation of the state imposing religious ideology on a nation.
Andrew Newberg and Mark Robert Waldman are coming out with a new book in 2009, How God Changes Your Brain. It's based from a neuroscientist perspective. Interesting note, they were actually conducting a survey of AAI attendees, with various God/Godless questions, and even asked us to draw a PICTURE of God. I drew nothing, but labeled it [This space intentionally left blank], for obvious reasons.
Though not exactly Atheist related, I thought this thing was hilarious. It's a Bill of Rights, made of metal, http://www.securityedition.com. At an airport, when you pass through the metal detectors, it will set them off, resulting in a search. They search you for the metal object, you "Bill of Rights" are taken away, and hopefully your "Bill of Rights" will be given back.Paul Martin, http://www.aspiringatheist.com, created a folk music atheist inspired album. I was talking to Paul, and we was saying that seeing Greydon Square perform at the last AAI Convention was one of his inspiration to making this album. I really like Track 2, Happy Heathen, here is a sample line:
I wasn't born a Christian,
I wasn't born a Jew,
I wasn't born a Muslim,
I wasn't born Hindu.
I was born free to think,
to question and to reason,
I was born free to think,
I was born a Happy Heathen
This is by no means an all inclusive list, there were tons more cool stuff.
I am going to submit each of these links individually, to see how the atheist spot community votes each up or down.
I'm sorry I haven't had anything new in over a week. Been busy. Today was a rather dreary day. Rain. Sun. Rain. Sun. More rain. At least the Yankees managed to beat the Red Sox (apologies to any of my readers who might be from the Boston area!).
The two year anniversary of this blog is coming up on September 30, so I will of course have to do the obligatory post on that.
But on to the topic at hand, which is gasoline prices. A couple of weeks ago, I noted a rise in the price of gasoline after having declined noticeably for the previous several weeks. The increase was attributed to the effects of hurricanes Ike and Gustav, which shuttered refining activity in the Gulf of Mexico. In that post, the most extreme rise in price was at an Exxon station down the road, which shot up 40 cents a gallon virtually overnight.
In the comments section of that post, I noted that a week or so later, the station suddenly changed from Exxon to Gulf, and the price also dropped. As of today, it is back where it was prior to the increase, at $3.70 per gallon. I stopped by there today and it only cost me $12 to fill the tank from three quarters to full.
The question now is, can the price at the pump get any lower? In 2006, there was a big dip in the price around October and early November. I recall that some conspiracy theorists claimed that it was done on purpose by the oil companies to help the Republicans maintain their control of Congress. Well, the Republicans lost their majorities in both the House and the Senate, so it didn't work, assuming the prices were artificially rigged. And sure enough, the prices did start to rise again shortly after Election Day. Then again, I also remember the price of gasoline noticeably dropped in the autumn of 2005, when there were no presidential or congressional elections going on, so it seems to me the fluctuation in price is more of a seasonal thing, though if that is the case, then last year bucked the trend.
Still, I am going to go out on a limb a bit and predict that we will continue to see a decline in the price of gasoline, absent some catastrophic event, in the next 3 or 4 weeks. American motorists are driving less, and the prospect of a prolonged downturn in the economy will also serve to depress demand. I believe it is possible that the price per gallon here in my part of Nassau County might even dip below $3.50 per gallon for a brief period. However, it won't last for a number of reasons. One reason, the approach of winter means that more of our petroleum supplies will be refined into home heating oil.
Furthermore, with the weather getting colder and the sun setting earlier, fuel conservation efforts will suffer. From my own perspective, it will harder to do errands by bicycle or walk to my local supermarket for food shopping on days that are cold and rainy. In such situations, driving is much more attractive.
If we have a very cold winter season, the price of home heating oil could go through the roof, and it will take a heavy toll on the budgets of many homeowners. Things could get ugly.
The two year anniversary of this blog is coming up on September 30, so I will of course have to do the obligatory post on that.
But on to the topic at hand, which is gasoline prices. A couple of weeks ago, I noted a rise in the price of gasoline after having declined noticeably for the previous several weeks. The increase was attributed to the effects of hurricanes Ike and Gustav, which shuttered refining activity in the Gulf of Mexico. In that post, the most extreme rise in price was at an Exxon station down the road, which shot up 40 cents a gallon virtually overnight.
In the comments section of that post, I noted that a week or so later, the station suddenly changed from Exxon to Gulf, and the price also dropped. As of today, it is back where it was prior to the increase, at $3.70 per gallon. I stopped by there today and it only cost me $12 to fill the tank from three quarters to full.
The question now is, can the price at the pump get any lower? In 2006, there was a big dip in the price around October and early November. I recall that some conspiracy theorists claimed that it was done on purpose by the oil companies to help the Republicans maintain their control of Congress. Well, the Republicans lost their majorities in both the House and the Senate, so it didn't work, assuming the prices were artificially rigged. And sure enough, the prices did start to rise again shortly after Election Day. Then again, I also remember the price of gasoline noticeably dropped in the autumn of 2005, when there were no presidential or congressional elections going on, so it seems to me the fluctuation in price is more of a seasonal thing, though if that is the case, then last year bucked the trend.
Still, I am going to go out on a limb a bit and predict that we will continue to see a decline in the price of gasoline, absent some catastrophic event, in the next 3 or 4 weeks. American motorists are driving less, and the prospect of a prolonged downturn in the economy will also serve to depress demand. I believe it is possible that the price per gallon here in my part of Nassau County might even dip below $3.50 per gallon for a brief period. However, it won't last for a number of reasons. One reason, the approach of winter means that more of our petroleum supplies will be refined into home heating oil.
Furthermore, with the weather getting colder and the sun setting earlier, fuel conservation efforts will suffer. From my own perspective, it will harder to do errands by bicycle or walk to my local supermarket for food shopping on days that are cold and rainy. In such situations, driving is much more attractive.
If we have a very cold winter season, the price of home heating oil could go through the roof, and it will take a heavy toll on the budgets of many homeowners. Things could get ugly.
Yes, my headline is provocative but bestiality isn’t something that hits the mainstream New Zealand media that often, but it’s been in the headlines twice in the last few months, under very similar circumstances.
In July, Raphael Giuseppe Caccioppoli, 37, who had been a member and Sunday school teacher with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was sentenced to five years jail down in Invercargill.
Included in Raphael’s long list of convictions were (amongst other things): performing an indecent act on two boys aged 10 and 12 years old, sexual violation, indecent assault and committing an act of indecency on a dog.
The court was told the Mormon Church knew Caccioppoli had sexually offended against boys, but did not tell The Police. In fact the Church was made aware of his offending way back in 1998.
Then last week there was the case of the Dunedin plumber & bell-ringer.
The former Master of the Bells at Dunedin’s First Church, David Hockley, was jailed for 7 ½ years for prolonged and predatory sexual offending against a young girl.
The victim was 13-years-old, when the offending started, an A-grade pupil with a dream of becoming a veterinary surgeon, but after she was raped and sexually abused, her school grades declined dramatically.
The Dunedin court heard how Hockley befriended the financially struggling family, ingratiating himself with them to gain access to her. At the time, she and her mother both taught Sunday school and Hockley asked if he could take her to church to teach her to ring bells, as it would be good exercise.
The rest of the story you can guess, but with one little embellishment.
As part of his pre-rape ritual, Hockley would stimulate himself (little imagination needed here) to pornographic videos.
His preferred subject matter was bestiality, which his victim was forced to watch.
As with the case in Invercargill, Dunedin’s First Church was ‘aware’ of the allegations but they stood by their man, even allowing him to teach others, right up to the point Hockley plead guilty to the charges.
The two cases that show striking similarities (a.) both pedophiles were God fearing Sunday School teachers, pillars of their communities, exploiting their position of power (b.) when their long-term offending came to the attention of their respective Churches, both parties opted to bury their heads in the sand rather than alerting authorities, thus allowing the offending to continue unabated (c.) both sicko’s got their kicks engaging in animal sex.
Some questions remain unanswered, like:
- Which version of Noah’s Ark fable did children learn when these guys were running classes!?
- Should Mormon’s from Southland be forth-with known as members of The Church of The Latter Day Saint Bernards?
- Spooky thought that there may be a Dunedin Second Church? If so, what have their ‘flock’ (had to include that thinly veiled pun somewhere, this is a Kiwi blog after all) been up-to, bearing in mind the level of deviancy that’s going on, at their more illustrious name-sakes?
Last but not least, what the hell was wrong with sheep the rest of us Kiwi’s manage to get by with, eh?!
I ask you, what's the country coming to, when sheep have to play second fiddle to dogs in our childrens Sunday School Classes?
In July, Raphael Giuseppe Caccioppoli, 37, who had been a member and Sunday school teacher with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was sentenced to five years jail down in Invercargill.
Included in Raphael’s long list of convictions were (amongst other things): performing an indecent act on two boys aged 10 and 12 years old, sexual violation, indecent assault and committing an act of indecency on a dog.
The court was told the Mormon Church knew Caccioppoli had sexually offended against boys, but did not tell The Police. In fact the Church was made aware of his offending way back in 1998.
Then last week there was the case of the Dunedin plumber & bell-ringer.
The former Master of the Bells at Dunedin’s First Church, David Hockley, was jailed for 7 ½ years for prolonged and predatory sexual offending against a young girl.
The victim was 13-years-old, when the offending started, an A-grade pupil with a dream of becoming a veterinary surgeon, but after she was raped and sexually abused, her school grades declined dramatically.
The Dunedin court heard how Hockley befriended the financially struggling family, ingratiating himself with them to gain access to her. At the time, she and her mother both taught Sunday school and Hockley asked if he could take her to church to teach her to ring bells, as it would be good exercise.
The rest of the story you can guess, but with one little embellishment.
As part of his pre-rape ritual, Hockley would stimulate himself (little imagination needed here) to pornographic videos.
His preferred subject matter was bestiality, which his victim was forced to watch.
As with the case in Invercargill, Dunedin’s First Church was ‘aware’ of the allegations but they stood by their man, even allowing him to teach others, right up to the point Hockley plead guilty to the charges.
The two cases that show striking similarities (a.) both pedophiles were God fearing Sunday School teachers, pillars of their communities, exploiting their position of power (b.) when their long-term offending came to the attention of their respective Churches, both parties opted to bury their heads in the sand rather than alerting authorities, thus allowing the offending to continue unabated (c.) both sicko’s got their kicks engaging in animal sex.
Some questions remain unanswered, like:
- Which version of Noah’s Ark fable did children learn when these guys were running classes!?
- Should Mormon’s from Southland be forth-with known as members of The Church of The Latter Day Saint Bernards?
- Spooky thought that there may be a Dunedin Second Church? If so, what have their ‘flock’ (had to include that thinly veiled pun somewhere, this is a Kiwi blog after all) been up-to, bearing in mind the level of deviancy that’s going on, at their more illustrious name-sakes?
Last but not least, what the hell was wrong with sheep the rest of us Kiwi’s manage to get by with, eh?!
I ask you, what's the country coming to, when sheep have to play second fiddle to dogs in our childrens Sunday School Classes?
Note: My posting of this video is not meant to criticize my friends out there who choose to identify themselves as agnostic instead of atheist but I do hope it encourages you to reexamine that choice...TPO
Penn Jillette: Atheist vs. Agnostic (3 min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAF2NuAI9EU
Hat tip to Midwest Atheist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAF2NuAI9EU
Hat tip to Midwest Atheist
So much for rendering unto Caesar. A few Christian ministers feel they have the right to break the law and endorse McCain from the pulpit. At risk is their tax-exempt status.
These ministers obviously believe their desire to violate the separation clause and attempt to influence their parishioner’s choice of presidential candidate is more important than obedience of the law. They should then be willing to accept the punishment for that violation, the loss of their tax-exempt status. Since Christians enjoy feeling persecuted (in a country where the majority of the population calls themselves Christian) I should expect them to rejoice in this removal of their status. Every time their church has to pay taxes on income and property, they can beat their chests and cry about how put-upon they are. Time to break out the hairshirts, kids.
Thanks to the Atheist Media Blog for a link to the video.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=20410467-f78d-416f-893c-141b1db43768)
With today's column, E.J. Montini officially surrenders his status as one of the few voices of sanity in that talentless stable of tenth-rate partisan hacks fondly known as the Arizona Repulsive.
Montini writes:
If Montini knew how to use "the Google", it would have taken him less than ten seconds to discover that the Alliance Defense Fund is an extreme-right dominionist group associated with just about all the leading figures of the fundamentalist right, and has been at the forefront of bashing gays and riling up the useful idiots against the nonexistent "War on Christmas" (TM, Faux News). Somehow I don't think too many of its affiliated preachers will be touting Obama today, though of course that's beside the point. The principle is clear: put up (tax payments) or shut up!
Montini looks favorably on the argument that requiring churches to keep out of partisan politics if they want to keep their tax-exempt status is an attack on free speech: "I can't imagine how a pastor could adhere to biblical theology and endorse any political candidate, but they should be allowed to try without fear of losing their tax-exempt status." (Emphasis in original.) I guess Montini is less familiar with another part of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
I can't see why Montini doesn't understand that freedom from tax is not a basic right but a huge special privilege given to religious bodies. Nothing in the Constitution requires it (let alone the many other breaks and exemptions churches routinely get from zoning laws, business licencing requirements, etc. etc.), and it would be perfectly legitimate to tax the churches as long as they are treated equally. But when the churches are freed of the tax burden, everyone else has to take up the slack. Congress may not be establishing a particular religion, but it is supporting religion in general with my tax dollars. This is unacceptable, and doubly so when the churches turn around and violate the minimal and reasonable conditions on this unique privilege granted to them.
The religious-industrial complex is the most profitable one in the US today. Think of the millions of poor saps tithing hard-earned money that they can ill afford to part with, and instead of getting even a word of thanks, they are continually exhorted to tithe harder and even double-tithe. Where does the money go? For gaudy megachurches, lavish mansions, executive jets and other toys for the super-rich religious-right leaders. Read the recent book Falwell Inc. for an example of how these holy-roller parasites live high on the hog by selling snake oil. And they don't pay a penny of tax on this money! But even that isn't enough for them, they want totally untrammelled power and a free rein for their partisan politicking! They want to take from Caesar instead of rendering unto him, and they want to pick their own Caesar in the first place! What jaw-dropping arrogance and hubris.
Montini says: "The restrictions are a farce. Not only because they fly in the face of the Constitution, but also because they don't work." By the same "logic", we shouldn't try to enforce laws against murder because there will always be murders. It's pretty clear who exactly is "flying in the face of the Constitution."
(Comment on this post)
Montini writes:
Would Jesus Christ sport a "Yes We Can" Obama '08 button on his tunic? Or would the Prince of Peace prefer a "Country First" McCain T-shirt?Oh, that's cute. "Christian lawyer" is an oxymoron because everyone knows that lawyers are scumbags while Christians are the very definition of goodness and morality. Gag me...
Your pastor might tell you at church today, shortly before he lets you know which political candidates deserve your vote.
Then, if their prayers are answered, the right politicians will be elected and the reverends will get busted by federal agents.
Today, more than 30 ministers from across the country plan to purposefully violate federal law by endorsing political candidates during their church sermons.
But under a federal law that has existed for more than 50 years, religious organizations cannot engage in political speech while they also accept deductible contributions. If they do, they risk losing their tax-exempt status.
Today's protest is being organized by the Scottsdale-based Alliance Defense Fund, an advocacy group made up of Christian lawyers. (Which sounds like an oxymoron on the scale of "business ethics," "airline food" and "adult male.")
If Montini knew how to use "the Google", it would have taken him less than ten seconds to discover that the Alliance Defense Fund is an extreme-right dominionist group associated with just about all the leading figures of the fundamentalist right, and has been at the forefront of bashing gays and riling up the useful idiots against the nonexistent "War on Christmas" (TM, Faux News). Somehow I don't think too many of its affiliated preachers will be touting Obama today, though of course that's beside the point. The principle is clear: put up (tax payments) or shut up!
Montini looks favorably on the argument that requiring churches to keep out of partisan politics if they want to keep their tax-exempt status is an attack on free speech: "I can't imagine how a pastor could adhere to biblical theology and endorse any political candidate, but they should be allowed to try without fear of losing their tax-exempt status." (Emphasis in original.) I guess Montini is less familiar with another part of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
I can't see why Montini doesn't understand that freedom from tax is not a basic right but a huge special privilege given to religious bodies. Nothing in the Constitution requires it (let alone the many other breaks and exemptions churches routinely get from zoning laws, business licencing requirements, etc. etc.), and it would be perfectly legitimate to tax the churches as long as they are treated equally. But when the churches are freed of the tax burden, everyone else has to take up the slack. Congress may not be establishing a particular religion, but it is supporting religion in general with my tax dollars. This is unacceptable, and doubly so when the churches turn around and violate the minimal and reasonable conditions on this unique privilege granted to them.
The religious-industrial complex is the most profitable one in the US today. Think of the millions of poor saps tithing hard-earned money that they can ill afford to part with, and instead of getting even a word of thanks, they are continually exhorted to tithe harder and even double-tithe. Where does the money go? For gaudy megachurches, lavish mansions, executive jets and other toys for the super-rich religious-right leaders. Read the recent book Falwell Inc. for an example of how these holy-roller parasites live high on the hog by selling snake oil. And they don't pay a penny of tax on this money! But even that isn't enough for them, they want totally untrammelled power and a free rein for their partisan politicking! They want to take from Caesar instead of rendering unto him, and they want to pick their own Caesar in the first place! What jaw-dropping arrogance and hubris.
Montini says: "The restrictions are a farce. Not only because they fly in the face of the Constitution, but also because they don't work." By the same "logic", we shouldn't try to enforce laws against murder because there will always be murders. It's pretty clear who exactly is "flying in the face of the Constitution."
(Comment on this post)
Another fortnight has bitten the dust and it is thus time for the 101st edition of Carnival of The Godless, kindly hosted on this occasion by The Lay Scientist. Another great mix from the assorted Atheist community for your perusal and enjoyment, are you feeling spoiled yet?
Now what the buggery do those numbers mean?
He’s at it again. Jesus is showing up in the strangest places. First it was a slice of toast, then an underpass wall (oh, wait, that was his mother), then the hind end of a dog, even in a carrot. Will the miracles never cease? Now he shows up in the corner of a room being prepared for construction, in a smear of drying wallboard mud. Of course, as one of the commenters mentioned, it’s really not Jesus, it’s Karl Marx, and frankly, I’d have to agree. It does look like Karl Marx. There’s the high forehead, the brooding eyes, the darker mustache. Or it could be Edgar Allen Poe. Here. You decide.
This is really pathetic. It’s a manifestation of the phenomena of people believing what they want to believe. They really want to believe in Jesus, they have no evidence that he actually exists or, for that matter, ever existed, so when they see something, anything, that looks….let’s say out of the ordinary…. they grasp at it and use it to confirm and justify their otherwise unsupportable beliefs. This man with a piece of lumber is attempting to do the same thing.
It’s also another example of Pareidolia which I previously wrote about here.
This story came from the Mobile, Alabama/Florida panhandle area, deep in the Bible belt. Is that surprising? An area where there is the largest concentration of blind belief in Jesus? At least one person who witnessed this had the presence of mind to apply a little skepticism.
His brother-in-law is not so sure. “It’s just open to personal interpretation of what you see. I do see a face. As far as putting what that face looks like, I don’t want to go that route,” says Gissendanner.
I would love to know where the god of the Great Miracles is these days. The one who created the universe with a snap of his fingers. The one who opened a path through the Red Sea for Moses and the Israelites. The one who tore down the walls of Jericho, and destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Where is he, now that we have 24/7/365 scrutiny, with webcams and traffic cameras at every street corner? When we have the ability to scientifically test each and every miraculous claim? Where is this god? Is it that he’s just too busy showing his presumed face in drywall mud that will be covered up with kitchen cabinets, grilled cheese that will be eaten, and carrots that will be sliced into a stew, to make another grand statement of naked power?
It seems that his miraculous powers have faded into mediocrity.
del.icio.us 
reddit 
It must be God’s will
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
