Free Speech and religion

Who would dare support anti-defamation of religion? 1) It's subjective. 2) Laughing at retards is fun!

After all, at one point, especially with religion, any discussion about a new faith was dangerous. You could be killed for it. Hypocrites. Their take is defamation is intolerance. I say anti-defamation is intolerance.

It's the same side of the same coin.

Source: Pharyngula

Pat Condell: Wake up, America

Bravo.

Pat Condell: The arrogance of clergy

Back from the summer vacation season and on fire!

...And Misery for All

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yf9gs5u

An amusing trial is going to occur in California early next year. In it, the constitutionality of the state's recent Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, will be assessed. Unfortunately for the backers of the porposition, they are in Judge Vaughn Walker's court. There was today a preliminary hearing with the attorneys, as highlighted in the link at the top. Judge Walker indicated that he was not amused by the position of the group and would take the opportunity in court to examine some of the rhetoric often spouted in the defense for such a ban.

I laughed several times reading this article, mostly at the simple questioning offered that garnered highly-polished I-don't-knows from Charles Cooper, attorney for the backers. After the hearing, the Mr. Cooper said that he would be ready with material to support his case.

Allow me to help you, the people who support this ban: you won't and never will for one simple reason: your position is wholly indefensible from a legal standpoint. The only thing you can say if that this is your belief or opinion. It will save a lot of time if you simply come out and say that it is the faith of your clients. Then the case can be thrown out for being patently stupid, bigoted, and faith-based.

One of Judge Walker's questions was regarding how same-sex marriage causes harm to mixed-sex marriages. Again, Mr. Cooper did not know. There is no harm to mixed-sex marriage except for that which is caused and perceived by the individual. After all, if same-sex marriage is allowed...where will it end? Mixed-species? Mixed-matter-states? Whom does it harm? No one. You may not like it, but that does not make it wrong or bad.

What business is it of yours, anyway? You do not want the government involved in an issue like this because, inevitably, it will decree something that you do not like. Then what? You gave them the power and now you are the victim. I would offer the same advise to you then as I do now: suck it up, jackass.

But marriage is a sacred institution. Bullshit. Humans were forming community-acknowledged pair bonds long before some asshole priest/shaman/witchdoctor decided to create a lucrative line of work for himself—and a few bucks—by pretending to solicit blessings from the Sky Daddy over the union. Humans form pair bonds. Even alligators form pair bonds, and they are hundreds of millions of years old—or 5000 in young-Earth years. That's all you need. Probably, after a few centuries of study, you might find that pair bond couples have greater success because of the nature of the pair bond. Maybe not much more, but its more.

Do pair bonded couples marry? Of course, and that's fine because at no time will I say that anyone cannot marry if they want. Marriage is not a sacred institution, unless you really want those blessings on the union. What are the typical blessings: children (have more sex, use the rhythm method, have sex every day - works for atheists and everyone else), a prosperous home (work harder or at least do work that rewards you in other ways beside money - works for atheists and everyone else); love and respect (don't be an asshole, plus love and respect your partner - works for atheists and everyone else). Hmm. I'm not seeing anything special here. Sounds more like magic and talismans and spells and potions are needed - you know, pagan stuff. Of course, if blessings are not part of the equation then make an appointment with your local Justice of the Peace.

I'm curious about these supposed blessings on the union: do you have to be a member of the cult to receive them or does the Sky Daddy dole them out to anyone? What about a couple who are not married, who have several healthy children, whose lives are rich, and who love each other to the end of their days? Did Sky Daddy secretly bless them? What if they are Buddhist? Atheist? Deist? Zoroastrian? Pastafarian? Stop me when this starts to sound really silly. Too late.

I'm sure that the big item that will be presented is the harm to children of same-sex parents. They are the same arguments used to prevent same-sex couples from adoption. Harm? What harm? Again, the only harm is that which is perceived by these bigots. They're not raising them like I do my children! Thank The Great Noodle! Maybe they won't be bigots.

Children of gay (from here the term "gay" shall encompass the full gamut of GLBT) couples may be brought up with different values than yours. Values are an individual's own pursuit. So what? Who is to say that such an upbringing is bad? The bigot? That person is biased. The same-sex couple? They're biased, too. Why don't you ask the kids once they are adults? Track them. Collect data. Analyze it. Collect more data. Compare those results with the first. Have other people conduct the same experiment with a different population and compare those results. Then, and only then, can you make a pronouncement about harm or benefit.

Aw, crap. That's the scientific method and this is a religious matter.

In any case, it's none of your fucking business any more than it is the government's. Those people are individuals. They have the freedom to change their own minds, express their own opinions, form new opinions and pursue their lives however they want. Just like you. The latitude you enjoy is available to everyone. It's starting to sound like you are opposed to people having values different from yours. Values are not part of a package deal when you reach adulthood. You build them over time. They change as a person experiences life. A person with fixed values is unable to grow.

Marriage is the cornerstone of the family. You might be on to something there...um, nope, that's bullshit, too. Maybe to you, marriage is required to have a proper family but have you looked at that position from outside your little bubble? How pathetic is that? You have to have this artificial construct imposed onto your life in order to be a good parent—I do not say couple because marriage is about children, you know, the traditional reason? You really believe that unless you are married, you will be a horrible parent and unable to love your spouse? Does that not sound incredibly wrong?

Marriage is about commitment. Again, I ask, are you completely unable to do this without the construct of marriage? Have you ever interacted with any of the other seven billion people on the face of the earth in your life? You have?!?! Were you civil to them? Were you polite? You weren't standing in front of a mirror, were you? So how is that any different from the way you would treat your domestic or life partner? If you are a civilized human, the answer is none. Incidentally, commitment to whom? Your spouse or your Sky Daddy? Who or what is more important? That sounds more like a three-way, and not the kind of three-way I was wanting.

Are you worried that those kids will not be brought up in a household of religious faith? Guess what, gays have faith, even if you think your faith ignores them. It is faith, after all. It is what you make of it.

Are you worried that the children of same-sex couples will become gay? There is no proof of that. If you want proof, I already told you how to measure that. It should only take a few hundred years to have a good data sample so that you can postulate a theory. It will never be any more than a theory because it involved humans, and humans are infinitely complex. Well, some are. To further clarify, so long as there is one variant, it remains a theory, never a law.

Whatever the results of the case, frankly, I do not care because, as the comedian is so fond of saying: everyone deserves the same opportunity to be miserable. If Judge Walker cock-punches these crackpots (please!), it will not matter to them because they will wrap themselves in their faith and know that they were right. That's fine. That's faith: a psychological mechanism to tell yourself that everything will be okay, despite the situation.

For my final swing of the bat, I have to ask: is this really that important? Is this more important than poverty? Is this more important that hunger? Is this more important than education? Is this more important than life where basic human dignity is oppressed? Stupid question, I know. Without suffering and ignorance, you cannot have faith.

I can only shake my head in incredulity. For the record, I don't think that marriage is completely bad, just unnecessary for civilized humans. If it helps some people behave themselves and/or be happy, more power to them? When the marriage fails, that okay, too. They're only human.

Since it's on topic: An opinion piece

De theocracy natura

The blogs that keep tabs on the religious nut jobs have plenty of quotes from their mouthings off that make it clear, though not always explicit, that these bozos would like nothing more than to live in an American theocracy. I have some thoughts on that.

There are few true theocracies in the world because they require one hundred percent commitment from the populace. Most of them, to obtain that amazing support, require such control and capitulation of the will and individuality of the populace that the very thought of it gives a rational, free individual a WTF moment.

Perhaps these evangelical lunatics should consider this: evangelicalism exists because it does not like the way the mainstream version of the cult works. Their crap is derived from Protestantism, which exists because they did not like the rules of Catholicism. Even evangelicalism has splinter groups who interpret things different from the other dangerous cults. So here is the question: whose rules are law? What about people who do not agree? Do they form a subcult? Are they afforded the same privileges? Of course not. One thing that religions is completely against is options. So that should tell them, if their rules are so awesome, why is it that some people do not like them?

It happened before and it will happen again: one person will be to differ with the ideals of the mainline faith and cause it to splinter. Will that be treated as a civil war? Considering how rabid some people in this country are about their faith, armed conflict is inevitable.

To offset this, they ruling cult will probably opt for a least-common-demoninator for of the rules. Keep it simple enough that everyone is happy. The problem with that, is that no religion works that way.

For a contemporary perspective, look at the goings-on in Iran. That is an example of an extreme cult running a theocracy and what happens when some people don't have their head up their ass. Eventually it will happen. There is no way that a system can maintain that kind of tension. Humans adapt and change. Humans that do not are dead anyway.

Asshole alert: Newt Gingrich

Source: blog.au.org

I read this article on the toilet this morning, strangely appropriate.
The gist of it is that the former Bozo of the House was speaking to the Republican Senate-House Dinner about, as described in the article, the importance of religion in American political life and public policy.

AU does their usual, wonderful job talking about this and how vile and inappropriate his words were. Beyond this, however, there are a few items that rub me the wrong way. Specifically, it involves the quotes from Gingrich that were delivered at a separate conference.

Specifically, this quote drives me nuts: Reignite in people an understanding that the heart of your life is subordination to God! The heart of your life is seeking God’s will, and that all of us are weak and vulnerable, all of us make mistakes, but that all are welcomed by a loving God.

Foremost, the language used here is rather sad. It is self-demeaning and pitiful. How could such a person have come to a position of leadership with he is, as he says in his own words, "weak and vulnerable?"

Secondly and just a disturbing is the fact that this is Gingrich's own, pathetic interpretation of his jebus cult cell. It is not everyone's opinion. What makes him think that others feel as pathetic as he does? Probably more do that I would hope. However, one thing that is systemic of the jebus cult-and other general cults-is the game of one-upsmanship that goes on where one cultist tries to show that it is more devout than the others. This act makes for a dangerous game that results in extremism. Extremism of any kind is not good-it's evil.

The other thing about his quote is exemplified by "subordinate" and "weak and vulnerable." What is this? What is usually weak, vulnerable, and subordinate? A child. Is this man not an adult? Stupid question. There are a variety of reasons why someone would act this way but I believe that it is mostly about shirking individual responsibility or culpability. When the cultist does something stupid that makes other livid, they have their imaginary friend to run to, who will like them and say nice things to them when everyone else calls them an asshole.

Taber-Chuckles: 2009-05-19

So many posts, so little time.

I can appreciate the attempt to give an encouraging message to the sheep but the short space makes for some damn funny clauses. This is one of them. I could be wrong, and this is the pure message as intended. Yikes. Let's start, as I always like to do, by analyzing the language. It is always a source of amusement.

Actually, the clause itself is fine but for two single words, pay and sacrifice. They give it a rather explicit meaning that is disturbing. All the speaker had to do is move who up to the first line and replace pay with make to make the clause acceptable. As it is, it reveals much about the psychology of the writer.

A person can make a sacrifice or pay a sacrifice. Paying for something implies that the object is something that the person wants but must perform a transaction to acquire it. Something tells me this is an impulse buy. Maybe they person wants the item but do they really need it? My main problem with the use of pay here is that the transaction involves the individual's life itself, as opposed to some form of legal tender or bartering with something of equal value. One's life is not. Apparently, the boogieman for this cult only accepts payment in death.

Next is the word sacrifice. Sure sacrifice fits the usage, if you change the verb, but one could just as easily-and effectively-use the word price. It definitely works with the verb pay. Pay the ultimate price has a shred of dignity to it. Make the ultimate sacrifice has a bit of dignity but also implies that the person knew that this would happen, thus performed the act willingly. That would be okay, but we are dealing with cultists, so there is an understanding of deception and/or coercion. What is the reward? Death. What is the cost of this reward? Death. Sounds like a death cult to me.

Then there is the other aspect of sacrifice. Of the two possibilities, this is usage is definitely literal: the person is literally sacrificing themselves, just like in the "good ol' days." People nowadays still make sacrifices but they are most often figurative. Wearing one's Sunday finest to the cult facility is a figurative sacrifice that pagan cults used to do. The Athenians would offer bolts of fine cloth to Athena as a sacrifice. What they do today is the same thing, just figurative—and very pagan. With this statement, however, it is implied that it is literal. It has to be-it is a death cult.

Towards the end of the writing, the word willing leapt out at me. There is not much to say about it other than it reinforces the supposition of dumb sheep being tricked into marching to the slaughter. All I can do is shake my head at the potential lost if these people were not fettered, neutered, and shamed into submission. They have no true respect for themselves.

On the other hand, taking the message as it reads, it is asking the reader to extol the virtue of someone so delusional as to believe that one person having holes shot in to their carcass makes a substantial difference. How many does it take? When have enough sheep been sacrificed to make one say: "maybe we cannot win this one?" Such arrogance. Such stupid sheep. Sounds like a match made in....ah, crap.

Regarding Dr. Tillman

I told myself that I was not going to comment on the vicious, hypocritical murder of Dr. Tillman, the late-term abortion doctor in some flat part of the country.

Considering how much gawd-lovers scream about abortion and children, do they not realize that children and reproduction technically are their gawd's curse to women and punishment to both men and women? Of course it is. To be funny, one could say that it was paradise because you could walk around the house naked all day. However, there is nothing to indicate that A&E were copulating prior to acquiring knowledge, prior to which they were as dumb as the moss on a stone. They did not have offspring in the garden. Ah! Maybe they could not because they were not sexually mature. That would be interesting in light of religious figures and children.

One thing that does bother me about religious justice is that a mundane instrument is required at all. There were a number of jerk-offs who said that their gawd would not want this murder victim to live. Obvious IT did because IT had not killed it before then. After all, IT is omniscient and omnipotent, but more importantly, IT is obviously lazy. Maybe IT decided to test IT's cultists with the existence of the murder victim. By committing the murder, the cultists are telling IT that they do not like that test. Well, isn't that convenient. If you tell your teacher that you don't want to take their stupid test, they say No problem. Here's your F. This shit does not jive with love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek, probably because it's inconvenient and isn't compatible with their burning intolerance. I wish they would follow the turn the other cheek line. More children from the insane cultists need to be aborted, as late-term as possible. Gas it right after the live birth.

There have also been a number of cultists who have publicly endorsed this murder. They should be rounded up and executed, young and old, rich and poor, cultists and cult leaders. They are all criminally insane. Now, we will not give them lethal injection, or electrocute them, or decapitate them, or shoot them, or hang them. Let's use their own favorite: burn them alive. All the others kill more quickly than burning but that is not the real reason to use it. We use it for the blood-curdling screams one hears coming from the flames. Real, protracted pain and suffering. They deserve only the best.

Pat Condell: Children of a stupid god

Back from a little time off, Pat flies out of the gate with both barrels blazing!

Squirm, selfish cultist, squirm!

No matter which way I turn when I leave, I have to pass by a church. When I do, it starts my mind to race and my blood to heat. Today was no different. What popped into my head today was the phrase, "my personal relationship with <your brand of pasta here>..." I then responded, "yes, it is a personal relationship. Mine is different. Howdy Doody's is different. Why are you talking to me?"

As I have said in the past, a cultist's faith is unique to them and solely for that individual's benefit. Of course, they may tell you that they want to share their joy with their faith. Why does that individual think that anyone else cares? Does the mad cultist share every time it is overcome with joy, say, from Blue Bell® Dutch Chocolate ice cream? How about when it wins the temporal, financial lottery? I've never seen it. I want some ice cream, too. Then, I am happy to chat with it, but only about ice cream.

Next time a cultist approaches you, wanting to share their faith, steer the conversation this way...

"I want to share with you about knowing <your brand of pasta here>."

"Wow. Before you do, do you consider yourself a most excellent practitioner of the pasta?"

"I try, through the grace of the pasta sauce."

"Do you think, right now, that I am going to be denied the unending pasta buffet?"

"Well, friend, by knowing the pasta..."

"No, that is not what I asked. Take a snapshot and put it on the scale. This is it, right here. Will I be denied the unending pasta buffet?"

"I cannot say for certain (This assumes an intelligent, non-raving cultist), but without constant attention, we all are in danger of that."

"Fair enough. For the sake of argument, let us agree that the answer is 'no.' Now, with that same snapshot, do you believe that you will enjoy the buffet?"

"I hope that I will be invited to the buffet when the time comes."

"Okay. Again, for the sake of argument, let us agree that that answer is 'yes.' Now, would you, right now, make a complete swap of the disposition of our souls in your afterlife?"

If the cultist answers yes, then the reason is one of the following:
1) They are truly genuine, but probably expect that their sacrifice will earn them another spot.
2) They are lying because this not something that one can do, according to the cult's manifesto.

If the cultist immediately answers no, then you know it is either #2 from the Yes group, or they have no intention of giving up their reservation.

If the cultist pauses before answering no, it was stunned by your question and denial is just a programmed response since all cults are about denying the individual. Most likely, the cultist will give you some excuse.

If the cultist does not give a direct answer to this clearly simple, non-confusing question-what a shock-and instead starts to ramble about the job of the happy, good cultist, take that as a no.

No matter the answer given, a cultist pursues its faith for purely selfish reasons. It does not care about your disposition. Maybe it constantly questions its own faith and now, you just attacked the sole reward for its foolish behavior. For an added bonus, you can tell the cultist, except the ones that answer Yes#1, "Well, that doesn't sound very pasta-like," and watch them squirm and likely become belligerent.

I ask again, why are you talking to me!?

Fiat Snotbubble!

A lot of synergy went into capturing this photo:

1. Decide on which place to stop at for dinner.
2. Decide to take the back way instead of the freeway.
3. They are out of one item in my order so I have to wait about ten minutes extra.
4. Leaving the place, traffic sucks so I decide to take another alternate route.
5. At the stop sign, one car in front of me makes a u-turn, letting our two vehicles fall into sync.
6. Howdy Doody, here, stops to wait for another car before it can make a turn.

Hmm. Six steps.

Defend your Faith?!!?

I was driving in to work one morning when I saw this little ditty stuck on the back of a SUV. Worse still, it was one of those magnetic ribbons that I see, usually ordering me to support the military. Even more recently, I saw one that ordered me to pray for the troops. Heh. There also is a ribbon ordering me to save the boobies...Major General Mictlantecuhtli reporting, sir!

This message takes the cake and it is not the first time my dessert has been snatched away because, if anything, these cultists are definitely inventive in ways that set to boil my anger and disgust with a side of classic you-poor-bastard head-smacking.

There is no reason to tell people to do this. Does it make a difference? No. The sad part is that they cannot see it. If faith is publicly banished, you, the cultist, still have it. The cultists would not have a label to stick on their group for fear of reprisals but you, the cultist, have faith. That, realistically, is faith - the singular interaction of a couple of neurons in that mass of grey jello in your skull. It is not a group-think. The only thing that the group has is a label for the faith, which has the same depth as calling a mixed group of bovines "cows."

Why? Because, while they definitely are all cows, they are not the same sub-species. This one is brown, this one has eight horns...you see the pattern here. Cultists within a single cult are the same way. They have the same basic tenets but they interpret and express them in different ways. Next time you are in your cult center, look at the zombie-bozo next to you. Do they feel exactly the same way about certain aspects of the tenets of the cult as you do? Are they as vehement about the same things as you? Probably not.

They may lean that direction, but is it the same amount? Maybe they lean the other way. All of those differences make up that person's faith, just as those same opinions make up yours. That is your faith. They are not the same. Maybe the zombie-bozo next to you would like nothing more than for some tenet that you hold dear to be kicked to the curb by the cult. You are both still members of your cult with a fundamental disagreement.

Think it's bullshit? I'll make it simple: abortion. Do you think you disagree with some of your fellow cultists over abortion? Are those reasons mundane or theological, not that it really matters for the sake of the argument - of course, it would be best if the assessment was that it was theological. It is a difference and that makes one person's faith different from another.

It is up to an individual cultist to defend their own faith because they define their faith.

So by defending your faith, which, arguably, will contain tenets and ideas that are antithetical to advancement and human progress, what this imperative is really saying is: "Defend your ignorance."

That is much clearer to me.

Taber-Chuckles: 2009-04-29

What the hell does this mean?

gawd already takes things, and from what I hear others saying, he takes the stuff they want: "gawd took my mother," "gawd took my leg." For a thing that is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, it sure it needy. Sounds more like a bully who needs his kneecaps busted. The only thing that I would let it take is the burning bag of doody I let go of on its porch.

Then there is the language of the statement. Like all good religious inspirationals, these are imperatives - commands. Let it go is understandable but the second sentence: let gawd take it is more deplorable. When you read it correctly, you can hear your mother yelling at you to share with your other sibling: Share your He-Man toy with your brother. Except, in their mental fantasy, gawd, the bully, will take it anyway. "Gimme, gimme, gimme" is the mantra of these people so it only makes sense that the giving has to come from somewhere.

This now makes me grin when I hear some dope bleat out the excuse: the lord will provide, or some variant thereof. Now you know why your leg was healed and where the resources for the miracle of life originated. Recycled from some other slob, who just then, is crying because someone took their He-Man toy.

Back to let it go. Why let it go? It is yours. You can have it so long as you want. People dying from old age, self-inflicted liberation, accidents, or doing something stupid is just that.

Just as its cultists are needy and walk around with their hands out, so does that cult's fantasy figure because, as the Mediterraneans correctly thought, gods are just like them, only powerful. As man is a drunkard who loves sex, so does his gods.

Ding dong! Someone's at the door.

Bishop Dolan: Scaremonger for idots

Link: http://www.nypost.com/seven/04232009/news/regionalnews/tamper_with_marriage__were_in_big_troubl_165728.htm

Enough about marriage, already. It is a contrived burden, just like religion. A tiny percentage, depending on whom you ask, of animal species are monogamous - about 3 - 5% by some estimates. If marriage is so awesome, why do so few animals do it? Gawhd obviously likes animals more than humans since they were made first - not as an afterthought - so why do they not practice it more? Because they are dumb animals?

Maybe it is a punishment. After all, adam and eve were companions until they decided to try knowledge. Then they were shackled together. That is not real marriage. It is an arranged marriage, maybe even a shotgun wedding. We all know how revolting those are.

Oh, wait, I answered my own question there.

Hmm. Why was woman made? Because man was lonely or because gawhd was tired of adam humping his leg?

As I've said before, if you care enough for someone and can tolerate them being around, you can coexist without some mumbo-jumbo magical contract.

At one point, the bishop rattles off some crap about morality and marriage being programmed in our DNA. I am not sure what he means by morality, and it does not matter because morality is subjective. Marriage, however, is more determinable. The concept of marriage is not in our DNA, pair bonding is. The two are not the same.

Something else in our DNA - fear, the real cause of religion.

Christian juries = evil zombie children

Source: CBS News (from BoingBoing.Net)

Of course this story takes place in Texas. Seems some jurors consulted bibblical passages concerning murder that happened to have elements of the crime for which they were sitting. The jury returned a death sentence, just like the characters in their cult manifesto ordered. The condemned took his case to the Supreme Court, who declined to hear the case.

Obviously this is a capital case so death was an option. The fact that some members of the jury consulted a mind-controlling cult's text for help to reach a decision is disgraceful and wrong. It now make you wonder how many jurors in untold numbers of cases have done this deliberately. Worse still, how many jurors have reached their own decision without having to look it up because they have memorized their cult manual? That chills the blood.

Juries are a nice concept but they do not work because people are involved. I would rather put my fate in the hands of a triumvirate of judges than twelve ignorant savages. Is that harsh? No. Attorneys love stupid people. The last thing they want is an educated person deciding a case. They cannot be swayed. They are not subject to cultistic mind-control. Those people think for themselves.

Makes me embarrassed to be a Texan.

Earth Day chuckle

Today is Earth Day, a day where we show our concern for our planet - our only home. Our planet is having some issues, like high carbon content in the atmosphere. Actually, the planet couldn't care less, it's the non-carbon breathing animals on the surface who are complaining. Don't worry, the planet will be just fine. It will heal itself, like any living organism, after it purges the pus-filled plague that roams its surface.

The plant life on the surface is designed to enjoy carbon content in the atmosphere. The trees and other plants will take care of it, or they would if they were still here and not being butchered to make room for useless cult centers littering the landscape or for more home for hyper-reproductive cult members. There should be a ban on cult center - one every fifty miles minimum.

This brings me to the "chuckle."

During my four hour, five-pints-o'-Guinness lunch, the tv was tuned to AMC for a showing of Two Mules for Sister Sarah. I had never seen all of it but it is okay for a western. During the final, climactic battle between the French soldiers and the Mexican rebels, I smiled to myself as the pieces fell into place: Earth Day, this movie on tv, Catholics killing Catholics.

Happy Earth Day.

L'Oignon: Breaking News: Panicked, Sweat-Covered Pope Reverses Longstanding Ban On Abortion

VATICAN CITY—Overturning 2,000 years of religious doctrine, an out-of-breath and visibly flustered Pope Benedict XVI announced Sunday that the termination of unwanted pregnancies was now "completely and perfectly acceptable in the eyes of God."

Read the rest of the article here

Pat Condell: Islamist Dickhead

The mindset of a fanatic is a head-scratcher. When observed as an individual, they are less than pitiful. Put them in a group and then it is a religion and acceptable. That is another head-scratcher.

Taber-Chuckles: 2009-03-23

Finally, the sign says something worthwhile. I approve of this message because it is not insulting, demeaning, oppressive, selfish, or exclusionary. On the other hand, a few days ago was James Madison's birthday. Maybe this is to acknowledge the contributions of this Founding Father to our culture.

Pat Condell: Free speech is sacred

Why do people hate being free?

Related link: Christopher Hitchens on the defamation of religion (the same U.N. resolution).

Just plain funny

I almost fell off the toilet.

Found at Gods4Suckers.com

Cleanup on aisle infinity

Link: Wired:Science

Some scientists think it's just an accidental byproduct of social cognition. They say humans evolved to imagine what other people are feeling, even people who aren't present — and from there it was a short step to positing supernatural beings.

Others argue that religion is too pervasive to be just a byproduct. Historically, at least, it must have provided believers and their communities some sort of advantage, or else it would have disappeared.

The argument breaks down into the so-called byproduct and adaptation camps. Of course, they might both be right.

* * *

The advantages of a Theory of Mind are clear. People who lack one are considered developmentally challenged, even disabled. Anthropologist Scott Atran, a proponent of the byproduct hypothesis, has suggested that it let our ancestors quickly distinguish between friends and enemies. And once humans were able to imagine someone who wasn't physically present, supernatural beliefs soon followed.

Interesting article about the herd mentality.

(Found on BoingBoing.net)

Pharyngula: Billy Graham answers his email

Link: From Pharyngula
Original source: Kansascity.com

DEAR BILLY GRAHAM: Why do people get involved in cults? My cousin has gotten involved in one, and no matter what we say to him, he refuses to listen. He says we are the ones who are in the dark, and he alone in our family has found the truth. — S. McM.

And then, Billy Graham spoke. Paragraph One...

DEAR S. McM: One characteristic of cults is that they strongly believe they alone are right in their beliefs and everyone else is wrong. Thus they reject the central truths of the Bible that Christians have held in common for almost 2,000 years and substitute their own beliefs for the clear teaching of Scripture.

The poor, drooling bastard. You know he did not see this at all. Hmm. He must be right.

(Thanks, PZM)

Not the joyful bondage for which I hoped.

There have been many times that I was ready to knock this one out and would not. Finally, it takes a death close to home to help one find the strength to take keyboard under hand and let it all out.

Overview: Marriage is a redundant, antiquated, superfluous, unnecessary, bogus institution that has no place in an intelligent, modern society.

Much is made of the institution of marriage by people with a vested interest in its perpetuation: theo-factional group leaders. You hear volumes of rhetoric about marriage is a sacred institution and marriage is between a man and a woman. Those two bites, right there, are the worst. If you examine the language used – matrimony, (joyful) bonds of matrimony, wedlock, conjugal – much of it has roots which are demeaning to a free-thinking, free-willed individual. I will come to that momentarily.

Marriage is sacred?!! What a load of crap. Pagans had marriage long, long before the psychotic cultist turds of today came along. Going back to pre-xian Roman times, it was partly to ensure legitimacy of offspring. Yes, it worked just as well then as now. If marriage is so awesome, why do couples have paternity tests?

Marriage is between a man and a woman? Here is another bovine with diarrhea. Matrimony is between a man and a woman. The word comes from Latin and is translatable as "to lead or guide into motherhood." You do not hear matrimony used as much now. After all, an elderly couple who marry cannot have matrimony. What about a couple who do not intend or are unable to have children? What about a couple who already have kids from prior situations and need/want absolutely no more? No matrimony there either. That's probably why marriage is heard more today. It covers more of the bases.

With that out of the way, is it really between just a man and a woman? Who cares? Considering how infinitely personal religion is, this is nothing more than an individual's religion – an individual's particular hangups – insinuating itself into someone else's business. What despicable arrogance. Originally, matrimony was not a religious ceremony. It was social. Superstitious peoples involved their gods in the ceremony for good luck. Today, the cultists are forced to adopt (now that is a funny word choice) a new term: marriage. Without asking anyone else, the new term now has to take on the same reverence as the displaced word.

Some people are married to their work. Is their job their partner? Does it complete that person? Too bad if that is the case. One might go so far as to think that this person is a bit deranged. Why this person and not the members of a couple...or the cultists doing the screaming? It's a double standard. As it has been said before: if two people love and care for each other, let them be together.

Something else that comes up when discussing marriage is that it is a sacred contract, a covenant, between two people. This is the part that I loathe the most. Two people do not need a contract—a set of rules and stipulations—to live together, have fun together, produce offspring, and finally grow old together. Two rational, sane, intelligent people do not need it because they will simply do it anyway. Another term that relates to marriage is conjugal. This is another word from Latin that literally mean "yolked together" - as in cattle. Does that sound like something intelligent people do? Intelligent people can easily work together to make a happy life for themselves. Dumb animals have to be tied to one another and have a driver whip them to go in the right direction—okay, just "a direction." Who is that driver? Take your pick: religion, society, tradition, guilt or any other members of the Anti-Progressive Club.

Between having to use a new term and the mainstreaming of the gay culture starting in the Eighties, the cultists have felt pushed into a corner. Many things in society that used to belong to them have been whittled away in the name of equality. There is very little left to them - thank the spaghetti for that! They deserve nothing special in an age of enlightenment. If anything, their behavior only highlights their hatred and bigotry. You cannot really blame them since their guide is a book that is confusing, anachronistic, and self-contradictory. One thing that is somewhat clear is that their supposed deity said "love thy neighbor as thyself." Pretty embarrassing, if you ask me. If they are so full of self-loathing, maybe they should kill themselves and leave the planet to people who do not have hang-ups, who have compassion, who can tolerate others and have it not impact their lives. How can I help them on their way? I know, let's eliminate all marriage-related benefits. That is equality and they hate it.

Die, hypocritical bastards, die, and take your bullshit institution with you.

For Karl.
This post was originally conceived: 2008-Jun-02

Are you the worm?

Today, I drove past by my Taber-chuckle source. Reading the current sign again, my mind raced away with something like the following:

What I fixated on from this sign is the sleeping xian tidbit. As before, my first thought is WAKE UP! Get your ass out of bed and get to work. There are things to do, not just for your community and the world but also yourself.

Sleeping in a metaphor in this case but I find it is more realistic than not. The main thing that is dormant in these people is their curiosity. How can anyone look the cosmos, the planet, or even their front yard and not be interested in something? I cannot remember the exact quote but I believe it was Einstein who observed, roughly paraphrased, that he could not believe that a deity would create something as powerful as the human brain for it to just sit there idle and dormant (my embellishment). Considering that emphatic xians are so keen to earn daddy's favor, should not they do something to make it proud? Would not the creativity of the human mind be just the ticket?

What do these people think will make their daddy proud? Singing? Praying? Kissing its ass? Those seem to be the main avenues to the afterlife. No one wants to be subjected to such crap, except really old, senile people, or Alzheimer's patients. Those people are draining. They are tired of life, but will not admit it. They have nothing more to give, nothing to contribute. Instead, they focus on the glory days, when people cared who they were, when they had power and influence, when they meant something and had significance in the world. No more. Now they just sit there, drooling and loading up a diaper. To these people, daddy is omnipotent and omniscience but to me, it sounds a bit omnistultant. Only an idiot would not appreciate the creative potential of the human being.

Rather than doing something for the world, the people spend their lives groveling, crying, pleading, begging, crawling to daddy to take them up after death. Then what? Do you get to stand on two feet? Of course not. Daddy likes you on your knees in front of him. Keep doing it. Keep crawling like a worm. After a lifetime of practice, they only just suck at it.

What makes them think they can stand up and use opposable thumbs? Daddy is an old daddy. Its thinking is old-time thinking. Its loud-mouthed cheerleaders tell us this all the time. So why do they expect to suddenly find a progressive afterlife experience? Since no other aspect of their perception of daddyland is different from the same concept of those sheep herders who invented it after a week of huffing raw methane, why should this part be any different. There is nothing to do except what daddy wants. Even these people move out of their parents' house because they want their independence and freedom. When they die, they want to move right back in to Slavery Central.

Hmmm. Sounds like hell to me.

L'Oignon: American Voices

Serotonin Makes Locusts Swarm
A new study indicates that an increased level of serotonin—a chemical that can prevent depression in humans—causes locusts to swarm. What do you think?


Link: The Onion: American Voices

Cultists in the News: Bozo has idea rooted in ignorance!

Link: Original story at Examiner.Com
Found at BoingBoing.Net

CRESAPTOWN, Md. (Map, News) - You've heard of kosher salt? Now there's a Christian variety.
Retired barber Joe Godlewski says he was inspired by television chefs who repeatedly recommended kosher salt in recipes.

"I said, 'What the heck's the matter with Christian salt?'" Godlewski said, sipping a beer in the living room of his home in unincorporated Cresaptown, a western Maryland mountain community.

Wow. What an unimpeachable source.

By next week, his trademarked Blessed Christians Salt will be available at http://www.memphi.net, the Web site of Memphis, Tenn.-based seasonings manufacturer Ingredients Corporation of America.

It's sea salt that's been blessed by an Episcopal priest, ICA President Damon S. Arney said Wednesday. He said the company also hopes to market the salt through Christian bookstores and as a fundraising tool for religious groups.

Arney and Godlewski, 73, said a share of the proceeds will be donated to Christian charities, but neither would specify a percentage.

Ah. So it is not an actual "good work," it is for profit.

Rabbi Sholem Fishbane, kosher administrator for the Chicago Rabbinical Council, said marketing Christian salt as an alternative to kosher salt reflects, at best, ignorance about Jewish dietary laws. He said all salt is inherently kosher because it occurs naturally and requires little or no processing.

Certified kosher foods are not blessed by rabbis but examined by them to ensure that the food and its processing conform with Biblical passages regarding food preparation and consumption, Fishbane said.

He said coarse-grained kosher salt is named for the way in which it was traditionally used - to draw blood from freshly butchered meat, because Jewish law prohibits consuming blood. Chefs often favor kosher salt because it's crunchy and easy to pinch.

Godlewski said his salt, packaged in containers bearing bright red crosses, has at least as much flavor and beneficial minerals as kosher salt - and it's for a good cause.

Flavor?! It's fucking salt! What good cause? It's for his wallet. If he was acting in a Christian fashion, he would take no money from it. But we know that that is not the case because, as George Carlin once commented, that might be something Christ would do.

Link: Keep on laughing here

Jesus Christ Constipated

Lyrics by Tim Corn
Lyrics Copyright (C) 2009, Cough-Cough Media Group

The Musical achievement of humanity: Jesus Christ Constipated.

Powerful songs of a man's need for salvation.


What's that Noise?
What's that noise, tell me that ain't happenin'!
What's that smell, tell me that ain't happenin'!
What's that noise, tell me that ain't happenin'!
What's that smell, tell me that ain't happenin'!
Will you keep it down?
I am trying to take a shit here!

Everything's Alright
Try not to push too hard,
don't blow out your anus
<indistinct>
You know that everything's all right,
yes, it will be fine.
If you strain you'll get hemorrhoids.
Close your eyes, close your eyes,
just relax and loosen your bowels.


I Don't Know How To Help Him
I Don't Know How To Help Him.
I've tried all the herbal remedies.
He's still backed up like rush hour.

Trial before Pilate
One! (Jesus pushes and grunts)
Two! (Jesus pushes and grunts)
Three! (Jesus pushes and grunts)
Four! (Jesus pushes and grunts)

This Jesus must Pass
Because, because, because he ate cheese,
If anything passes it'll feel like a tree!
Because, because, because he ate,
'cause he ate, 'cause he ate...cheese.

Taber-Chuckles: 2009-02-26

What a fitting metaphor: the sleeping xian as an infant. They sure are.

Who doesn't like rocking a cradle? You see that sleeping face and you just want to shake the crap out of it. Make that infant bounce all over the place, maybe wedge the skull between the bars. Then laugh as the little baby cries.

Why are xians asleep all the time? It would be nice if they woke up for a second and contributed to the world. The strength of their devotion to something from a dream, applied to real problems in the world could accomplish so much. Of course, the last time they applied themselves, they tortured people across the world for not liking the Prince of Peace. Maybe having them sleep is not such a bad idea. It definitely makes it easier to sneak up on them and club them like a baby seal. Good times.

Granted, this sign has only so many slots for letters, but one could just as easily interpret it as Satan is rocking the cradle in an affectionate way. After all, Satan truly loves Mankind. He did his best to improve our lot and free us from an abusive parent whose first words to its children was "DON'T TOUCH THAT!"

Let's take another tack. Let us ignore that knowledge aspect and focus on the other: obedience. What you see in the allegory of the chapter of Genesis is a test of obedience. It assumes, however, that obedience is good. Obedience is only good for children. Adults, however, can capitulate. You yield some degree of individuality for the sake of a functioning society. However, those first words from the sky daddy are don't wander off and don't touch that. Parents still do that today. Out of fear of germs - a creation of the daddy, yes? - anything Baby Moron tries to play with is swatted away. No wonder kids today are damn-near worthless.

For humans, advancements are not made by people who toes the line, who capitulate completely, who grovel in fealty. Advancement is made by someone who stands up for itself and says Screw you! I'm doing this! It makes a difference for knowledge and culture and society. That benefits everyone, unlike religion, which only offers benefits a single individual: the believer.

I just become angry as I have this dialog in my head. What a waste.

Pat Condell: Freedom go to hell

Here in America, at least locally, we do not have quite the problem that Europe does. That said, we are in the early stages of having this problem with insane Fundamentalists. Different cloak, same problem. This medieval thinking must end.

Happy Birthday, Chuck!

Two hundred years ago today, Chuck was born. Today, we acknowledge his humanity.

As the coordinating web site says, this day:

...expresses gratitude for the enormous benefits that scientific knowledge, acquired through human curiosity and ingenuity, has contributed to the advancement of humanity.

        http://www.darwinday.org/

So, happy birthday, Charles Darwin. Some of us are happy to stand in the light of inquiry with you. Those who spurn you as a poster boy will, as your theory beautifully explains, go the way of the dodo. That glorious day cannot come soon enough.

Taber-Chuckles: Jan 28, 2009

I definitely need to drive by this place more often. I just happened to go by one morning because I was running late and here was this beauty. I think I gritted my teeth when it click in my head what it said.

In one sentence is the command and the excuse. I can understand the clergy expressing this thought. They better...it's their job. If they don't think this then they need to quit.

To individuals, this surely must rub some of them the wrong way. Don't think. Yield to gawd. It will reward your submission with...an uninspiring life. I suppose if you approach it from a point of thinking that you as an individual is nothing, worthless and empty without a continuous serving of mystical spaghetti, it makes a little sense. You are nothing. You have nothing. Subjugate your remaining flecks of will to some The Pasta and as a reward, you will enjoy the same semi-random events that affect everyone around you. It's magic!

Is His Noodleness really giving his best? I suppose those parents who willfully let their teenage daughter die from easily treated diabetes or another set of parents also mentioned in the same article who let their fifteen-month-old die from a blood disease think that gawd's will was done. They prayed and I am sure they prayed their asses off so that their children would die and the lord provided.

Is gawd's will gawd's best? I suspect that you can find millions of people throughout this perpetual dark ages who would agree with that but their faith prevents them from making such a statement. Instead, they justify their disappointment with pathetic expressions like "It was gawd's will."

I think what bugs me so much about it is its similarity to the Nanny State. No one wants a Nanny State, except for freeloaders. Yet this is what the "Non-thought of the Day" is expressing. Leave it to me. I'll take care of you. Do these people not have a sense of pride in themselves? Do they not think themselves capable of doing anything significant? I guess not. It's the crux of the most contemptible phrase these people mutter: The Lord will provide. No. Your lord will provide you with only one thing: death. Everything else is up to you.


Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death. - Albert Einstein

I will agree that the sad individuals who yield their will to a cloud will not do so for every question in their lives. However, that is not the point. It is egregious that they do so at all in the first place. They threw away the greatest and most powerful part of their humanity: the ability to grow beyond what they are. The church does not like that because you are with the boogieman made of you; that should be good enough. It makes me weep to think of the wasted potential of mankind on a singular, selfish desire.

I leave you with a few more thoughts from Albert Einstein, which I feel apply nicely:

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

Pat Condell: Shame on the Netherlands

What really chaps my hide is something that Pat points out: if a person spoke critically of izlame to the same extent that its own text does of other people and religions, by sharia law, that person would be imprisoned or even executed. That is a head-scratcher. Not only that, but izlamic states have tried to elicit an international accord or some-such through the UN to make criticizing a religion a crime.

How is this even possible for rational people to consider? You cannot criticize my beliefs? Our beliefs make us who we are so really this is about not criticizing people. Why is this such a big deal? Are they concerned that people will easily find something about which to be critical? Hmm, let's see. Maybe it the intolerance, the inhumanity, and the abuse of their own on a basic human rights-level. It is contemptible, anachronistic behavior that does not belong in the modern world.

Technorati Tags:
oppression, Pat Condell, Youtube, intolerance

Pat Condell: Merry Christmas

Poop! I watched it but forgot to add it. Sorry, kids.

Technorati Tags:
Pat Condell, religion

Cut the cord already!

Everyone looks forward to the day that they move out of their parents house and strike out on their own. The sense of independence! The freedom to do what you want, how and when you want, and for as long as you want. You have the power and responsibility for your life and your actions. The feeling is exhilarating!

There are some who never want to leave their parents house. They want the power but none of the responsibility. For them, there is religion. Sure they have real responsibility but they know that they have their sky daddy to run to and hide behind its skirt when they can't cut the mustard.

i listen to my father now and then but it is only for advise or maybe a suggestion...never for a command to action. Even if I do react that way, it was my decision to do so. Others, with the crutch of religion, have that x factor to fill in the blank, to shoulder the burden and the blame for poor decisions, including the lack of a decision.

Leaving home and the influence of your parents is a right of passage to adulthood. So...what is their problem?

Technorati Tags:
idiots, religion, sky daddy, social evil

Simply ponderous

Newton, NJ stops having a sectarian invocation and members whine. Now they will have secular invocation to open sessions. Why?

I do not normally think about how often a prayer opens up a official government session of whatever. Congress does it. I would expect the Supreme Court does. It has no impact on the proceedings yet they feel compelled to do it, as if without it, the session will be somewhat less. They do not do it for the hell of it, it has a purpose. Functionally, it has no impact.

There may be some members of the session who have to have a prayer before they knuckle down to work. These people are weak and ineffective. Anyone who cannot work for themselves without offering some kind of pagan ritual beforehand should be chastised. For them, it is a prayer to their deity but it really is a pagan ritual. Historic texts that predate the blight of xianity describe a prayer ritual before government works, festivals, and the like. Much like everything else in xianity, they also ripped off the groveling need to beg their sky daddy for guidance because they are too stupid to do it themselves, or, most likely, in an attempt to channel the divine wisdom of a plate of spaghetti into their own dealings.

When these people in New Jersey were told that what they are doing is really not a good idea from a legal perspective, they wisely decided to stop doing it. If only they could have kept their mouths shut. They vomit out the same old shit of If you don't like it, close your ears! The same advice they ignore for the likes of Howard Stern or intelligent, adult material on the radio or tv. Then, that is filth that must be stopped. I am sure that the individual, who brought to their attention this problem, couldn't care less if someone wants to beg the invisible man for common sense to do their job. The objection is foisting it on everyone present. Not everyone is a dolt who needs to be told what to do. Some people can think and make intelligent decisions for themselves.

They have pissed and moaned and changed their ways...or not. Now they are going to try and devise a secular invocation before they start their business. Again, why? It is still a waste of time. The secular wording will only annoy the brain-dead babies who miss their brain-daddy. Every recitation will grate on them and hopefully drive them into apoplexy. With any luck, their heads will explode and then decent, intelligent people can be chosen to work on the council. Unless...that is all that their city has. If they have to perform a pagan ritual to decide when the county faire is, nothing help them if they have to make a real decision.

It is simply ponderous.

Link: Americans United blog

Technorati Tags:
hypocrisy, idiocy, idiots, ignorance, social evil, thinking, thoughts

Religious Freedom Day

Today, January 16, is Religious Freedom Day. Americans United has a delightful page full of links to historical documents that espouse this concept in an intelligent and tolerant manner. They are as important today as they were when written a few hundred years ago.

Link: Words Of Liberty: Readings For Religious Freedom Day

Technorati Tags:
freedom, intelligence, knowledge, thinking