State-supported exemptions to the laws of England and Wales based on a biblically-justifiable “deeply-held” christian conviction

Hmmm…

Possibly related posts:

1. Religious privilege trumps equality yet again As reported in today’s The Telegraph, a sikh teenager who...

I’m not a huge follower of the CAM movement as they generally appear to be quackers enough for me to dismiss en masse, but they do have their followers and supporters, and they’ve recently be been busy on Twitter, mostly circling like decrepit vultures around the Shorty awards.

Anyway, there’s this one guy who calls himself “Health Ranger” (I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, but I’m guessing that it’s related to some Americanism I’m ignorant of) who has popped up in quite a few Twitter conversations recently, so I thought I’d take a look at his spiel.

He doesn’t like sceptics. Oh no. Not one jot.

Well, it seems that he doesn’t: he calls them “skeptics” (the quotes appear to be part of the word itself), but he doesn’t actually seem to know any. Not a one. At least nothing like any sceptic (or skeptic) that I know.

Apparently, as a sceptic (or a “skeptic”), I believe:

• ALL vaccines are safe and effective
• there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given
• people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs all at the same time
• that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism [sic]
• that pregnancy is a disease
• that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods
• that water has no role in human health other than basic hydration
• that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants are inert, having absolutely no benefit whatsoever for human health

as well as some other crazy shit.

I have no idea what a living food is. Is that like oats that are still attached to the ground? A chicken kiev that’s still running around? A surprisingly perky salmon fillet?

Oh, yeah. In the grand tradition of those that Make Shit Up™ he completely fails to provide any actual quotes or references. Just saying…

I guess I’m not a “skeptic” then. Well, thank fuck for that: they sound as batshit insane as the Health Ranger!

Possibly related posts:

1. Dear Annabel Croft Dear Annabel Croft, Just FYI: /hattip: @bengoldacre ...
2. Erm, whut? Apparently this blog has been chosen (with 60 others) for...

Who knew? I certainly didn’t. And, I’ll make mention now that it’s christian OEC, not YEC. As if that makes it much better, but I’ll let you be the judge of that.

God Sues Researchers for DNA Piracy
Patent Office Discovers 17-Billion-Year-Old Filing in Archives

It’s kind of amusing, but not a patch on the quality exhibited by the likes ofThe Onion. I’ll give them a B+ for effort, though.

This one, by the same author, isn’t so clever… Are strawmen funny?

Possibly related posts:

1. Petition: Withdraw support for creationist zoo in schools Over at RD.net today, someone has posted a petition: We...

Anyone who has read Dawkins’ The God Delusion will, in all likelihood, recall his description of the christian bible’s Old Testament god¹. For those of you that don’t recall, it reads:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

So, a bit of a git, then.

However, it struck me that these very same qualities often apply to a certain number of fundamentalist christians—presumably trying to be more like their god²—and the first and most prominent example of which that sprang to my mind was Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church/”God Hates <topic>” fame.

What a card that chap is. His god is almost certainly the same god that Dawkins mentions; the far more relaxed New Testament redeemer god, Jesus—traditionally the primary god of christianity—doesn’t appear to get much of a look-in in Phelps’ theology.

I began to wonder how like their gods these sorts of people are, how many of these qualities might actually apply to Phelps, and others of that ilk, were one to substitute his name into the above.

[Fred Phelps] is arguably the most unpleasant character in [christendom]: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, [spectacularly] homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.³

It appears that pretty much the only descriptions that don’t apply to Phelps are those that would entail him having to personally perform or order the killing of one or more other people. Perhaps with an infestation of bees. As this sort of thing is generally frowned upon in most cultures (yes, including the bee thing)—occasionally for dogmatic religious reasons but more often than not for purely secular, sensible and justifiable ones—this is hardly surprising; one can lose their liberty to travel the world being a controversial bigot if one is convicted, by a very human court of law, for such actions and end up gaoled.

I did struggle somewhat over the ’sadomasochist’ item, but I realised that, as well as enjoying inflicting misery on others, the proclaimed beliefs of Phelps’ bizarre little cult do appear to indicate he’d be happy with whatever judgement his god handed out to him, even if that meant the ‘hell’ he so often condemns (thankfully completely ineffectively) others to.

According to mainstream christian tradition, the Old Testament god chilled out quite a bit when he raped got laid and impregnated some poor girl with himself-as-Jesus. Unfortunately the same can’t be said of Phelps, who seems to have tenaciously remained determinedly repugnant despite having sired a whole bunch of offspring, presumably in the traditional manner. And with a relatively ready, knowing and willing partner too.

Perhaps he needs to get some a little more often, although I can easily imagine a chap of Phelps’ age and predisposition having erectile (amongst other) issues.

I wonder how often Yahweh gets a bit of action these days. It’s not something one hears about.

How much does your favourite religious crackpot resemble their god(s) in word and deed?

1. at least the Israelite-loving Yahweh one that christians keep harping on about. I’ll ignore El, Hadad, Moloch, Asherah and the rest of them for now and take them at their harebrained monopolytheistic word.
2. or perhaps simply because they’re hate-filled asshats.
3. All of these qualities can, and have been, attributed to (and substantiated if not freely admitted by) Phelps and his clan elsewhere. I’ll leave this as an exercise for the reader’s edification. Hint: the Wikipedia link previously is a good starting point.

Possibly related posts:

1. Confessions of a Lapsed [Person Who Doesn't Believe In Gods] Jenn Q Public (”one part reason, two parts awesome” –...
2. The gaps of the gods We often hear, from the likes of creationists/’intelligent design’...

From Pictures for Sad Children.

No related posts.

From comicblasphemy.com (NSFW, more often than not).

No related posts.

To even begin to consider oneself comparable to Galileo, one must fulfil two criteria:

a) actually be being persecuted; and
b) right.

No related posts.

This is just too funny!

What is the better vessel? Noah’s ark or the Millennium Falcon?

Well, Noah’s ark is real, and the Millennium Falcon is… is fake.

ROFLcopter is, by far, a better vessel than Noah’s boat: at least it can fly.

As one interviewee describes the actions of these godbots:

People will go to any lengths for comedy, I guess.

Somehow, I don’t think these asshats are doing it for comedy, but then again, that’s the essence of a Poe, right?

/hattip: Religious People Are Funny

Possibly related posts:

1. Understanding christian sectarianism One of the things that has always confused me is...
2. Gay scientists identify christian gene /hattip: No Double Standards ...
3. 37 seconds of pure christian love Mmm mmm mmm. Caution: NSFW – contains very loud swearing...

Actually, the title ofThe Telegraph article is “Art gallery invites visitors to deface the Bible“, which isn’t particularly accurate either, according to the “facts” as presented in the article itself.

The article opens:

The open Bible is part of the Made in God’s Image exhibition at the Gallery of Modern Art (Goma) in Glasgow.

Its inclusion was the idea of a local church which hoped gallery visitors would suggest ways in which the Bible could be “reclaimed as a sacred text”.

A sign next to a container of pens says: “If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it.”

My emphasis.

Of course, the church in question (Metropolitan Community Church) didn’t actually like it when some people, invited to do so, went ahead and did so. Especially when those suggestions didn’t involve things church might have preferred, like leaving it well alone and saying that it’s just perfect as it is.

For some reason, it never seemed to occur to the church that asking anybody, especially Glaswegians, to offer their opinions on anything isn’t necessarily a good idea if you can’t stand alternate opinions, swearing, lack of undue respect, thinking and all the other things that people who run churches seemingly abhor.

I call this what it is: Big. Fat. Religious. FAIL.

The Bible has already been adorned with comments, according toThe Times, including “**** [fuck?] the Bible” and “This is all sexist pish, so disregard it all.”

A contributor wrote on the first page of Genesis: “I am Bi, Female & Proud. I want no god who is disappointed in this.”

Good for her.

Oh, and no mention of any affecting something specifically christian would be complete without some senior god-bothering muppet expressing fatwa envy. They don’t disappoint:

The Church of Scotland said it condemned any sacrilegious act, while a spokesman for the Catholic Church said: “One wonders whether the organisers would have been quite as willing to have the Koran defaced.”

Perhaps the organisers wouldn’t, but some of us ungodly types wouldn’t mind.

I’ve not read any version of a bible in a while, but litigious queer-bashing wingnut Minichiello Williams doesn’t seem to have, either. Her memory is even worse than mine:

Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “We have got to a point where we call the desecration of the Bible modern art. The Bible stands for everything this art does not: for creation, beauty, hope and regeneration.”

If I recall, it also stands for cruelty and genocide, slavery, misogyny, intolerance, immorality and other, more general, bronze age magical stupidity. I seem to remember at least that much and, even if I didn’t, it’s not very difficult to find.

There’s also another exhibit on show, although this one I find a little more peculiar (or “arty pish” in the local vernacular):

Another exhibit consist of a video that shows a young woman ripping pages out of the Bible and stuffing them in her underwear and in her mouth.

Um, yes. Quite.

I may have to take a trip into Glasgow this weekend. If nothing else, I can get a chicken katsu curry from Wagamama while I’m there.

Possibly related posts:

1. Stephen ‘Birdshit’ Green demands evidence of “no God” I’m a bit late to the game with this, although...
2. The Telegraph: World’s “oldest christian church” found in Jordan For those of you with a penchant for stuff dug...
3. The Telegraph: JW refuses transfusion for injured husband The Telegraph: Jehovah’s Witness refuses to let husband have life-saving...