Quantcast
Apr 14

Apparently, in the spirit of “political correctness gone mad” or somesuch moronic ballyhoo, a teacher from a school in Seattle, Washington, USA has decided that egg-shaped containers often given as gifts at this time of year, and often known by the rather sober moniker “easter eggs”, are henceforth to be called “spring spheres” by her pupils.

That’s according to an article from fundietastic outlet CBN.com, anyway, who are obviously up in arms about “easter” being taken away from Jesus, who is of course the origin of the egg/confection combination, probably by having left them behind in his tomb as incontrovertible yet tasty proof of his having being there.  Or something.

And—obviously—she’s not a maths teacher, otherwise she’d know that they’re spring ovoids not spheres. The silly ninny.

Note to self: buy chocolate.

Mar 28
It looks like Deepak Chopra doesn’t actually have the monopoly in misappropriating the word “quantum” and applying it to woo. Now there’s something called “Quantum Jumping“. (The Google search link is there because I refuse to give wingnuts ad revenue directly). “What’s Quantum Jumping?”, I hear you ask. Thankfully, they’ve kindly explained it for us [...]
Mar 28
I never saw this the first time around, and an older post over at Why Don’t You Blog? reminded me to do a search on Google. This episode of Channel 4′s Dispatches deals with autocratic christian fundamentalist fanatics campaigning against the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill (amongst other things) in the UK in 2008. ((They failed. The Bill received [...]
Mar 27
I love watching the Atheist Experience tv show (from the Atheist Community of Austin) or indeed listening to the podcast version: it gives me a window into the religiosity of the USA—something that both utterly fascinates and horrifies me—in a way where I can at least comprehend the language, if not the culture, behind it, [...]
Jan 24

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!

No related posts.

Jan 13

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’...
  3. The qualities of the faithful At a recent christian fair trade conference, Labour MP and...

Jul 25

A few weeks ago, after the news that Richard Dawkins (rightly, IMO) decided not to accept an offer to “debate” Ray “Tampon Case/Banana Man” Comfort, YouTube user Thunderf00t made a video offering to have a conversation with Comfort.

Comfort apparently accepted, and Thunderf00t and Comfort met up to discuss things.

The results can be seen on YouTube.

I’ve not seen the videos yet, so can’t offer any opinion on them. However, knowing Comfort’s style of FAIL argumentation and quality of “evidence”, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Thunderf00t kick Comforts arse. Intellectually speaking.

Possibly related posts:

  1. Know scientology, know it’s a con The “church” of scientology is launching a new media blitz,...
  2. Ray Comfort’s new web site (as I read it) Ray Comfort (the imbecile behind the ‘atheist’s nightmare’/banana argument (you...
  3. A True Christianâ„¢ new media explosion What do you mean they’re not True Christiansâ„¢? They really...

Jul 24

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...

Jul 23

Actually, the title of The 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 to The 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...

Jul 23

Actually, the title of The 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 to The 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...

Jul 21

Ignore the incessant whining of NOM, the catcalls of bigotted stupidity of the catholic church and the retarded diatribes of homophobes everywhere. This graph tells you all you need to know.

The consequences of gay marriage

/hattip: Graphjam and littlewoodenman

Possibly related posts:

  1. Gay marriage debate chart /hattip: The Good Atheist & @almightygod. ...
  2. BBC: WBC banned from entering the UK Further to my post yesterday that contained the news about...
  3. Gay scientists identify christian gene /hattip: No Double Standards ...

Jul 19

It amazes me that, in the 21st century, people still base their lives around ancient myth. But that’s exactly what a bunch of christian loons in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland are doing.

What’s their beef? Well, it’s because a ferry company, to comply with European equality legislation is running ferries between Stornoway on the isle of Lewis and Ullapool on the (Scottish) UK mainland.

On a Sunday!

Shock! Horror!

Yes, that’s right: there are a bunch of fundies on an obscure (but pretty) little Scottish island in the Atlantic that think having a boat moving on Sunday will damn their eternal souls to ultimate doom. DOOM!

From the BBC:

The controversial first scheduled Sunday ferry sailing from Stornoway on Lewis to mainland Scotland has gone ahead as planned.

There has been strong opposition on the island, where the Sabbath day has traditionally been strictly observed.

A small group of protesters prayed and sang a psalm as cars boarded the boat, but several hundred people clapped.

Supporters said it would boost the economy of the Hebridean island and offer local people freedom to travel.

Of course, this is just another example of a bunch of narrow-minded religionists wanting special privilege to force others to follow their self-imposed rules under an appeal to “tradition”.

The BBC continues:

As cars lined up in the ferry terminal car park, protesters gathered in silence behind a banner.

It read: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”.

They sang Psalm 46 – God is our refuge and our strength – and prayed for the nation to “turn its back from sin and wickedness”.

A number of women wiped away tears as they prayed for a return to the Lord’s commandments.

Wiped away tears? Because a ferry is sailing on a Sunday? I can’t even begin to consider comprehending the “logic” that must be floating around in the heads of these people. Truly, it boggles my mind.

Indeed, they also try to make a secular appeal (sadly again to tradition) as a purely religious one would rightly be laughed out of Caledonian MacBrayne’s boardroom. Again the BBC:

A leaflet handed out by a group of local churches said that the peace and tranquillity of the islands was enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.

It said: “By and large we like it like this.

“We are not oppressed by a quiet Sunday.”

It wished tourists who came to Lewis by ferry a “happy and blessed trip to the islands”.

Yes, these tourists will of course be welcomed when they go to the island to do the touristy things that tourists do. Just not on a Sunday. Because being a tourist (or a resident that has things to do on a Sunday) is obviously going to interfere with the tranquility of the island.

[facepalm]

I’ve been to a couple of the islands of the west coast of Scotland, and seen this sort of thing first-hand. Most businesses and shops are completely shut, except the larger supermarket chains which often have very restricted opening hours (12pm-4pm/5pm is not uncommon), and the booze aisles are usually shuttered all day even though Scottish law allows the offsale of alcohol after 12pm.

There are always two things open on a Sunday regardless: churches and pubs. The Scottish islands have historically have had a higher per-capita incidence of both religiosity and alcohol/drug abuse than the general Scottish population. I’ve sometimes wondered if this anachronistic attitude to Sunday working has anything to do with it.

I’m not sure what the relevant European equality legislation is, so can’t comment on that. As far as I’m concerned, the ferry company should be free to run ferries any day of the week that they choose and people are willing to pay for, irrespective of the whims of a few religionistas and their chosen dogma.

Here’s some advice for these morons: if you want to keep Sunday “holy” then just stay off the damned ferry on a Sunday. Actually, shouldn’t you still be on your knees in church or something, keeping Sunday “holy” all day? Just keeping it “holy” only in the morning seems just a tad convenient…

BBC: Sunday ferry makes first sailing

Possibly related posts:

  1. Telegraph: God-botherers upset over pen marks in book of fairy tales Actually, the title of The Telegraph article is “Art gallery...
  2. The Telegraph: BBC supports Islam and attacks Christianity, says whinging git Yeah, it’s from The Torygraph. The BBC supports Islam and...
  3. Do you work in fire & rescue in Scotland? If you work in the Fire and Rescue Service in...

Jul 19

It amazes me that, in the 21st century, people still base their lives around ancient myth. But that’s exactly what a bunch of christian loons in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland are doing.

What’s their beef? Well, it’s because a ferry company, to comply with European equality legislation is running ferries between Stornoway on the isle of Lewis and Ullapool on the (Scottish) UK mainland.

On a Sunday!

Shock! Horror!

Yes, that’s right: there are a bunch of fundies on an obscure (but pretty) little Scottish island in the Atlantic that think having a boat moving on Sunday will damn their eternal souls to ultimate doom. DOOM!

From the BBC:

The controversial first scheduled Sunday ferry sailing from Stornoway on Lewis to mainland Scotland has gone ahead as planned.

There has been strong opposition on the island, where the Sabbath day has traditionally been strictly observed.

A small group of protesters prayed and sang a psalm as cars boarded the boat, but several hundred people clapped.

Supporters said it would boost the economy of the Hebridean island and offer local people freedom to travel.

Of course, this is just another example of a bunch of narrow-minded religionists wanting special privilege to force others to follow their self-imposed rules under an appeal to “tradition”.

The BBC continues:

As cars lined up in the ferry terminal car park, protesters gathered in silence behind a banner.

It read: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”.

They sang Psalm 46 – God is our refuge and our strength – and prayed for the nation to “turn its back from sin and wickedness”.

A number of women wiped away tears as they prayed for a return to the Lord’s commandments.

Wiped away tears? Because a ferry is sailing on a Sunday? I can’t even begin to consider comprehending the “logic” that must be floating around in the heads of these people. Truly, it boggles my mind.

Indeed, they also try to make a secular appeal (sadly again to tradition) as a purely religious one would rightly be laughed out of Caledonian MacBrayne’s boardroom. Again the BBC:

A leaflet handed out by a group of local churches said that the peace and tranquillity of the islands was enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.

It said: “By and large we like it like this.

“We are not oppressed by a quiet Sunday.”

It wished tourists who came to Lewis by ferry a “happy and blessed trip to the islands”.

Yes, these tourists will of course be welcomed when they go to the island to do the touristy things that tourists do. Just not on a Sunday. Because being a tourist (or a resident that has things to do on a Sunday) is obviously going to interfere with the tranquility of the island.

[facepalm]

I’ve been to a couple of the islands of the west coast of Scotland, and seen this sort of thing first-hand. Most businesses and shops are completely shut, except the larger supermarket chains which often have very restricted opening hours (12pm-4pm/5pm is not uncommon), and the booze aisles are usually shuttered all day even though Scottish law allows the offsale of alcohol after 12pm.

There are always two things open on a Sunday regardless: churches and pubs. The Scottish islands have historically have had a higher per-capita incidence of both religiosity and alcohol/drug abuse than the general Scottish population. I’ve sometimes wondered if this anachronistic attitude to Sunday working has anything to do with it.

I’m not sure what the relevant European equality legislation is, so can’t comment on that. As far as I’m concerned, the ferry company should be free to run ferries any day of the week that they choose and people are willing to pay for, irrespective of the whims of a few religionistas and their chosen dogma.

Here’s some advice for these morons: if you want to keep Sunday “holy” then just stay off the damned ferry on a Sunday. Actually, shouldn’t you still be on your knees in church or something, keeping Sunday “holy” all day? Just keeping it “holy” only in the morning seems just a tad convenient…

BBC: Sunday ferry makes first sailing

Possibly related posts:

  1. Telegraph: God-botherers upset over pen marks in book of fairy tales Actually, the title of The Telegraph article is “Art gallery...
  2. The Telegraph: BBC supports Islam and attacks Christianity, says whinging git Yeah, it’s from The Torygraph. The BBC supports Islam and...
  3. Do you work in fire & rescue in Scotland? If you work in the Fire and Rescue Service in...

Jul 13

Well, this is interesting.

Well, not really, but I don’t often get Ray ‘Tampon-Case’ Comfort style/quality email trying to get me to think that I’m scum and need a zombie to apologise to for it.

If you’re interested, the email I got is below the fold, but this was my rather brief response:

Sorry, but nothing here cuts it. Here’s a list you can use to help you in your attempt to make me believe you.

http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/10/01/go-on-then-convince-me-of-your-religion/

I’m still going to mark this mail as spam though, hilarious as it is.

Thanks for the chuckle.

null

The email I received (emphasis as original) is below. However, I’ve removed the To and CC fields as these poor people have already been subjected to this nonsense, but I have no qualms about spam enabling fundies. Hey, they emailed me.

From Mel Chizedek <mel_kizadeck@bellsouth.net>.

Hello,

Thank you for not deleting this email right away. While you and I may not know each other, what I want to tell you is important enough for me to want to contact you. But don’t worry, I obtained your email address off of the internet [sic] and will not contact you again unless you reply.

I assure you that this is not a solicitation or a scam of any kind. I do not want to sell you anything or sign you up for anything. My hope is that you will continue to read the email. My hope is that, in the end, you will see this letter as so much more than “spam.”

The reason for the email is so that you can hear about the good news of the Gospel. Now, you might be saying to yourself, “I already know Jesus Christ and am sure of my salvation”. I THOUGHT I WAS SURE TOO. It can’t hurt to examine your faith and see where you stand. The cost of being wrong is too great.

The Bible says in Hebrews 9:27 that “it’s appointed for every man once to die, and then judgment.” What that means is that everyone dies once and is then judged before Almighty God. So, if you are standing before God on Judgment [sic] Day, are you going to heaven or hell? Have you been a good person? You might think so but, unfortunately though, we aren’t going to be judged by any human standard of goodness. There is only one standard by which we can all be judged and that standard is God’s Law, also known as the Ten Commandments. The Bible says in Romans 2:15 that God “has written the law upon the heart of every man in the form of our conscience” so that when we die and face him, we will have no excuse.

So let’s go through them real quick. Have you ever broken the 9th commandment by lying? Of course you have. A person who does that is called a liar. Have you ever broken the 8th commandment and stolen anything (regardless of value)? A person who does that is called a thief. Let’s look at the 7th commandment against adultery: Jesus says that whoever looks upon another person with lust has committed adultery in their heart. Have you ever looked with lust? Yes. What about the 6th commandment against murder? Jesus also says that whoever hates a person, without cause, has committed murder in his heart. Have you ever hated anyone? If you’re like most people, at this point you are a lying, thieving, murdering adulterer at heart standing before a just and holy God.

At this point, you might be saying to yourself, I don’t believe in God, Heaven, or Hell. I say that it doesn’t matter what you believe. Let’s say that someone held you up at gunpoint, would you laugh at him and say “I don’t believe in guns!”? Of course not! That’s because your disbelief doesn’t negate reality and believe me, GOD IS REAL. Or are you willing to bet your eternal life on it?

Or, you might be saying to yourself, “I don’t believe that God would judge us so harshly. My god is a god of love and forgiveness and would never send anyone to Hell”. You are right. Your god would not send anyone to Hell because he doesn’t exist! What you’ve just done is broken the 2nd commandment against idolatry. When you create a god in your mind to suit yourself, you are turning your back on the real God. Have you ever broken the 3rd commandment by using our Creator’s name in vain as a four-letter cuss word? That’s called blasphemy and is very serious in God’s eyes.

So, if you are still reading this then you’ve probably said, “That’s impossible! No one can live up to the standard of the Ten Commandments.” You are right. No one can. Man is not perfect. We were born into sin and have a sinful nature. God is so holy and so perfect that his standard is unattainable to mortal men. You might say, but that’s not fair! What about forgiveness? God is supposed to forgive us of our sins. What about all of the good things that I’ve done in my life?

Well, let’s look at an example. What if you were in a courtroom standing before a judge and you had just been convicted of murder. You did it. You’re guilty and all that’s left is for the judge to render his sentence: $500,000 or death. You can’t just say to the judge “Your honor. I just wanted to say that you are a good man and that I know you will forgive me of my crime. Besides, what about all the other good things I’ve done in my life?” What’s the judge going to say? If he is a good judge then he’s going to send you to the electric chair. He might want to be merciful, but he can’t just set you free, the law demands a penalty. Since God is a good judge and because he is so good and so holy, he has no choice but to send you to Hell. The law demands a penalty and the Bible says in Romans 6:23 that “the wages of sin is DEATH”.

But, here’s where your story takes a turn for the good. You are about to be lead away in shackles when all of a sudden, someone comes into the courtroom and pays your $500,000 fine. The judge then sees that the requirement of the law has been fulfilled. And since you’ve met the requirements, you are now free to go! That’s what Jesus Christ did for all of us when he died on the cross 2000 years ago. Jesus Christ came to earth, God in human form, born of a virgin, lived a perfect and blameless life, was crucified on the cross, and then rose from the dead three days later as a payment for our sins. All we have to do is accept the payment and we are free from eternal damnation!

How do we accept the payment? All that is required from us is to ask God for forgiveness, repent (turn away) from our sins, and then trust in the Lord Jesus Christ with all of our hearts (Romans 10:9). When we do that, Jesus Christ washes away all of our sins and we can now stand before God blameless on Judgment Day. Then read your Bible and obey it, join a local church and be baptized. God will make you into a new person with new wants and desires. He doesn’t want to send you to Hell, He loves you. You’ve probably heard John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him, will not perish but have eternal life.”

Well, that’s it. Thank you for reading all the way through. I thank you for your time and my prayer is that you will consider all that you’ve read and seek Jesus Christ for eternal life today. Don’t wait for tomorrow because we never know when we will be taken from this earth and now that you’ve read this email you are without excuse when you stand before God.

To Him be the glory,
Mel Kizadeck

www.needgod.com
http://tinyurl.com/newfaith

P.S. If you’re already saved by faith in Christ, would you please forward this email along to others in your address book? Who knows? You might just help bring a friend to Christ.

LOL!

Possibly related posts:

  1. Stephen ‘Birdshit’ Green demands evidence of “no God” I’m a bit late to the game with this, although...
  2. Mr Victor Senchenko, or how I learned to stop worrying and love email spam A while back, I received a press release spam1 from...
  3. WorldNutDaily hack takes Hitchens’ challenge Do you remember the challenge that Christopher Hitchens apparently mentions...

Jul 13

Well, this is interesting.

Well, not really, but I don’t often get Ray ‘Tampon-Case’ Comfort style/quality email trying to get me to think that I’m scum and need a zombie to apologise to for it.

If you’re interested, the email I got is below the fold, but this was my rather brief response:

Sorry, but nothing here cuts it. Here’s a list you can use to help you in your attempt to make me believe you.

http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/10/01/go-on-then-convince-me-of-your-religion/

I’m still going to mark this mail as spam though, hilarious as it is.

Thanks for the chuckle.

null

The email I received (emphasis as original) is below. However, I’ve removed the To and CC fields as these poor people have already been subjected to this nonsense, but I have no qualms about spam enabling fundies. Hey, they emailed me.

From Mel Chizedek <mel_kizadeck@bellsouth.net>.

Hello,

Thank you for not deleting this email right away. While you and I may not know each other, what I want to tell you is important enough for me to want to contact you. But don’t worry, I obtained your email address off of the internet [sic] and will not contact you again unless you reply.

I assure you that this is not a solicitation or a scam of any kind. I do not want to sell you anything or sign you up for anything. My hope is that you will continue to read the email. My hope is that, in the end, you will see this letter as so much more than “spam.”

The reason for the email is so that you can hear about the good news of the Gospel. Now, you might be saying to yourself, “I already know Jesus Christ and am sure of my salvation”. I THOUGHT I WAS SURE TOO. It can’t hurt to examine your faith and see where you stand. The cost of being wrong is too great.

The Bible says in Hebrews 9:27 that “it’s appointed for every man once to die, and then judgment.” What that means is that everyone dies once and is then judged before Almighty God. So, if you are standing before God on Judgment [sic] Day, are you going to heaven or hell? Have you been a good person? You might think so but, unfortunately though, we aren’t going to be judged by any human standard of goodness. There is only one standard by which we can all be judged and that standard is God’s Law, also known as the Ten Commandments. The Bible says in Romans 2:15 that God “has written the law upon the heart of every man in the form of our conscience” so that when we die and face him, we will have no excuse.

So let’s go through them real quick. Have you ever broken the 9th commandment by lying? Of course you have. A person who does that is called a liar. Have you ever broken the 8th commandment and stolen anything (regardless of value)? A person who does that is called a thief. Let’s look at the 7th commandment against adultery: Jesus says that whoever looks upon another person with lust has committed adultery in their heart. Have you ever looked with lust? Yes. What about the 6th commandment against murder? Jesus also says that whoever hates a person, without cause, has committed murder in his heart. Have you ever hated anyone? If you’re like most people, at this point you are a lying, thieving, murdering adulterer at heart standing before a just and holy God.

At this point, you might be saying to yourself, I don’t believe in God, Heaven, or Hell. I say that it doesn’t matter what you believe. Let’s say that someone held you up at gunpoint, would you laugh at him and say “I don’t believe in guns!”? Of course not! That’s because your disbelief doesn’t negate reality and believe me, GOD IS REAL. Or are you willing to bet your eternal life on it?

Or, you might be saying to yourself, “I don’t believe that God would judge us so harshly. My god is a god of love and forgiveness and would never send anyone to Hell”. You are right. Your god would not send anyone to Hell because he doesn’t exist! What you’ve just done is broken the 2nd commandment against idolatry. When you create a god in your mind to suit yourself, you are turning your back on the real God. Have you ever broken the 3rd commandment by using our Creator’s name in vain as a four-letter cuss word? That’s called blasphemy and is very serious in God’s eyes.

So, if you are still reading this then you’ve probably said, “That’s impossible! No one can live up to the standard of the Ten Commandments.” You are right. No one can. Man is not perfect. We were born into sin and have a sinful nature. God is so holy and so perfect that his standard is unattainable to mortal men. You might say, but that’s not fair! What about forgiveness? God is supposed to forgive us of our sins. What about all of the good things that I’ve done in my life?

Well, let’s look at an example. What if you were in a courtroom standing before a judge and you had just been convicted of murder. You did it. You’re guilty and all that’s left is for the judge to render his sentence: $500,000 or death. You can’t just say to the judge “Your honor. I just wanted to say that you are a good man and that I know you will forgive me of my crime. Besides, what about all the other good things I’ve done in my life?” What’s the judge going to say? If he is a good judge then he’s going to send you to the electric chair. He might want to be merciful, but he can’t just set you free, the law demands a penalty. Since God is a good judge and because he is so good and so holy, he has no choice but to send you to Hell. The law demands a penalty and the Bible says in Romans 6:23 that “the wages of sin is DEATH”.

But, here’s where your story takes a turn for the good. You are about to be lead away in shackles when all of a sudden, someone comes into the courtroom and pays your $500,000 fine. The judge then sees that the requirement of the law has been fulfilled. And since you’ve met the requirements, you are now free to go! That’s what Jesus Christ did for all of us when he died on the cross 2000 years ago. Jesus Christ came to earth, God in human form, born of a virgin, lived a perfect and blameless life, was crucified on the cross, and then rose from the dead three days later as a payment for our sins. All we have to do is accept the payment and we are free from eternal damnation!

How do we accept the payment? All that is required from us is to ask God for forgiveness, repent (turn away) from our sins, and then trust in the Lord Jesus Christ with all of our hearts (Romans 10:9). When we do that, Jesus Christ washes away all of our sins and we can now stand before God blameless on Judgment Day. Then read your Bible and obey it, join a local church and be baptized. God will make you into a new person with new wants and desires. He doesn’t want to send you to Hell, He loves you. You’ve probably heard John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him, will not perish but have eternal life.”

Well, that’s it. Thank you for reading all the way through. I thank you for your time and my prayer is that you will consider all that you’ve read and seek Jesus Christ for eternal life today. Don’t wait for tomorrow because we never know when we will be taken from this earth and now that you’ve read this email you are without excuse when you stand before God.

To Him be the glory,
Mel Kizadeck

www.needgod.com
http://tinyurl.com/newfaith

P.S. If you’re already saved by faith in Christ, would you please forward this email along to others in your address book? Who knows? You might just help bring a friend to Christ.

LOL!

Possibly related posts:

  1. Stephen ‘Birdshit’ Green demands evidence of “no God” I’m a bit late to the game with this, although...
  2. Mr Victor Senchenko, or how I learned to stop worrying and love email spam A while back, I received a press release spam1 from...
  3. WorldNutDaily hack takes Hitchens’ challenge Do you remember the challenge that Christopher Hitchens apparently mentions...

Jun 25

Yes, it’s that time of the month where someone decides to have a go at the “New Atheists”. I’ll simply link to it for your interest, but it was this comment from (yet another ignorant and “oh woe is me!” christian) that somewhat piqued my relatively low-key ire.

They wrote:

This study convinces me even more that New Atheism has all the qualifications of a being its own religion. It seems to be becoming more organized and the tenets of its “faith” more scripted or set in place, with even four? main “bishops”; ie. Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.

Reading Dawkin’s quote and your description of his love for and faith in the great Cosmos, I’m struck with how “worshipful” his devotion is to the Universe.

You wrote, “He approaches science poetically, demonstrating that it can enrich our lives and aid us in a search for meaning and purpose. “The world and the universe is an extremely beautiful place, and the more we understand about it the more beautiful does it appear,” Dawkins explains.
It is this belief in the power of science to open our eyes to the awe-inspiring splendor and mystery of the Cosmos and its contents that drives Dawkins’ passion for evolutionary biology and his criticism of religion.”

To me this is just one religion criticizing the others. “Nothing is new under the sun.”

In my opinion, the intolerance of the new atheist is only a result of his/her commitment to their own set of beliefs and their worship of what is seen rather than what is unseen. The resentment to Christianity, in particular, definitely stems from the spiritual side of things, even from those who deny its existence. Have you ever met a religion which doesn’t resent Christianity?

I felt a need to respond, so I wrote:

Whatever “New Atheism” is (and it’s patently obvious that this isn’t a label that atheists apply to themselves except in the context of rebuttals to arguments like this), a “religion” it certainly isn’t.

Organised? If by that you mean that there are discussion fora, community web sites, (arguably) sceptical conferences, then yes. If you mean that we all gather in a bunch of rooms every so-often and pat ourselves on the back, you’re onto a wrong ‘un.

Tenets? What on earth is a tenet of atheism (or “New Atheism”, whatever)? Even the most elastic definition I could find (dictionary.com) defines a ‘tenet’ as “any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., esp. one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.”

The closest tenet of so-called “New Atheism” then could be the collective position (as per the original definition of “atheism”, rather than the populist strawman definition) that we don’t believe in gods. Any gods. All gods. Not just the christian gods.

Bishops? Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Grayling? Really? They hold services every now and then and tell us exactly what to think based on their pontifications of our holy books? Oops, we don’t have any.

Faith? What faith? Atheism is a respondent position, not an accusatory one. It’s a position based on the question “do you believe in the existence of any gods?” and if the answer is anything other than “yes”, then one is, by definition, an atheist.

Worship? An appreciation of the fact that we’re alive in the here and now and can look at the universe with a sense of wonder and try to figure it how it works? Please.

You’ve also completely ignored to tell us what the rest of our supposed religion’s trappings are. So, please tell us what our “holy book” is, what our “rituals” and “traditions” are, where our “churches” are, what our “dogmas” are, who our “popes” and “saints” are, how we “pray” and what we “pray” for.

I’m surprised you didn’t go the whole hog and call us “militant” while you’re at it. By ‘militant’ you would of course means “doesn’t shut up when told to”, rather than the usual definition of militant meaning going out with a gun and shooting someone, or carrying a belt of plastique into a crowded market place. You know, the usual use of the word ‘militant’, it’s even one you can find on Fox News! But then conflation and equivocation is a traditional refuge of the unreasonable mind.

It’s typical of people like you to call atheism a “religion” and then deride it. Just in case you don’t get it, this fails for at least two reasons:

1) it’s a strawman argument and anyone with even an ounce of common sense can see through it; and
2) by calling it a religion and then decrying it as such lends absolutely no credibility to any religion, especially that of the arguer.

There are other reasons, but I’m not entirely convinced that you’d understand why your accusation fails for the two reasons above, and frankly it’d be a waste of time.

“New Atheism” is nothing if not responding to the unjustified demand of “you can’t criticise religion (especially mine!)” with the flat answer of “yes, I can, why can’t I?”.

Atheists, “New” or otherwise, can hold any number of positions including an appreciation, an indifference or a hostility to classic organised religions, including (but certainly not exclusively) christianity.

[Comment broken here due to length.]

To claim that we resent christianity en masse is to a) completely fail to understand the basic position of an atheist (see above fro hints); b) play the “persecution” card (don’t worry, we know it’s in the christian scripture, so we expect it) and c) demonstrate that you appear to think that everyone who is an atheist used to be a christian (but obviously not a True Christianâ„¢) which is not only untrue but absurd and only serves to show a startlingly narrow experience and mindset.

Your basic argument (and pay attention because there’s a big point here, but I’ll write slowly so that you can keep up) seems to come down to “New Atheism has all the qualifications of a being its own religion … [because] [h]ave you ever met a religion which doesn’t resent Christianity”.

Completely risible.

And I laugh at you (no, not because you’re a christian before you decide to replay the same persecution card) but because you can’t seem to reason your way out of a wet paper sack, even with the aid of a chain-saw and an angry claustrophobic ferret.

I can’t help feeling that it’s like smacking a 4 year old for something it doesn’t understand it’s done wrong.

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. Spot the difference The “tolerable” atheist The “intolerant, dogmatic, assertive, fundamentalist, militant” atheist...
  3. WorldNutDaily hack takes Hitchens’ challenge Do you remember the challenge that Christopher Hitchens apparently mentions...

Jun 22

Dear Annabel Croft,

Just FYI:

Homeopathy is full of shit

/hattip: @bengoldacre

Possibly related posts:

  1. Dear Sir, this is my new religion I seem to have missed this the first time around,...
  2. Dear Frau Hitler Darwin exposed! /hattip Sneer Review ...

Jun 21

Jenn Q Public (”one part reason, two parts awesome” – LOL!) is apparently a lapsed atheist. Sorry, I meant Atheist. The capitalisation is important, you see, because that means that Atheists are Dogmatic, Militant, Intolerant, and all of those other extra-bad qualities that only atheists (sorry, Atheists) exhibit and is never, ever, ever found in religious people.

NEVER!

So she wrote it up.

I didn’t follow her point (if there was one) mainly because she was describing herself as an Atheist who followed the quasi-religious doctrine of Atheism, whatever that is. Is this where the “New” comes in in “New Atheists”? I’m still to understand what that means too.

So, in order to understand what she was saying, I translated it into words I could understand, seeing if it would make more sense to me and if I would see myself and other atheists/secularists reflected in the mirror of her concern:

Confessions of a Lapsed [Person Who Doesn't Believe In Gods]

Do you believe in God? Really? And you’re willing to admit it in public?

Oops. Sorry, for a moment I slipped back into the arrogant [Lack Of Belief In Gods] of my youth.

Before my parents had children, they decided to raise their kids in a secular home. We had gifts at Christmas time and chocolate covered matzoh during Passover, but there was no religion and certainly no God.

When I was in grade school, God was just a kind of nondescript character who popped up in Little House on the Prairie books from time to time. He seemed like a decent enough fellow, but was more or less a bit player who didn’t have much to say.

After my grandfather died when I was seven, his Baptist minister lifted me up in his arms and told me, “It’s all right, Grandpa’s with God now.” At that moment, I could feel my dress was hiked up in the back and all I could think about was pulling it back down. But later, I asked around and discovered that God was our Heavenly father, whatever that was supposed to mean.

I figured, who better to ask about my Heavenly father than my earthly father, but when I did he laughed.

He wasn’t amused in a “kids say the darnedest things” kind of way. He was laughing derisively at the idea that my mother’s family believed in God. And thus began my introduction to [A Lack Of Belief In Gods].

There are people who call themselves [a person who doesn't believe in gods] who are simply nonbelievers, and then there are the big “A” [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] for whom [Lack Of Belief In Gods] is almost a religion. This quasi-religious doctrine isn’t neutral on the existence of other religions; rather, [A Lack Of Belief In Gods] is a virulently anti-theistic creed characterized by sneering contempt for religion and a profoundly dogmatic bigotry toward people of faith.

Want to know how [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] see the rest of us?

I grew up learning from my father that [A Lack Of Belief In Gods] is rational, and therefore, religious belief is irrational; [A Lack Of Belief In Gods] is defined by logic, religious faith by fantasy; and science is real while religion is make believe. Faith, I was taught, requires a willful stifling of reason.

The Torah, the Gospels, the Qur’an? All woefully inaccurate, laughably inconsistent fictions used to encourage belief in an illusion for the purpose of social control.

My curiosity in religion surfaced again in seventh grade when several of my friends were planning Bat Mitzvahs. Surely my friends weren’t ignorant enough to actually believe in God, were they? The answer was no. For most of these reform Jews, this celebration marked the official end to the tedium of Hebrew school. Most of their families were Ethical Culturists with a recreational interest in preserving their Jewish cultural identity. In other words, they too were [People Who Don't Believe In Gods].

By the time I reached high school, having had little contact with religion, I was convinced that people of faith were credulous and unenlightened. They gravitated toward soothing tales of God and afterlife to help them deal with their own mortality. At best, I considered belief in God an anachronism, a quaint vestige of days gone by, on par with superstitions about wicked thoughts causing birth defects.

At my extremely liberal college, I was exposed to even more militant [Lack Of Belief In Gods]. It was there that I learned the mere whiff of religiosity is worthy of denigration. Many of the people I met approached religion with something between disdain and loathing, and considered all religious belief a form of fanaticism. Christians in particular were characterized as knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing fundies (and that was in polite company.)

Fortunately my mother taught me enough manners that I kept my bias to myself.

In this new environment, my [Lack Of Belief In Gods] was more than evidence of good reasoning, it was a socially desirable badge of intellectual superiority. Make no mistake: [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] think they’re smarter than you. [A Lack Of Belief In Gods] isn’t simple skepticism. It is a certainty that believers are wrong, and by extension, intellectually inferior. Religion, especially Judeo-Christian religion, is nothing more than a crutch for dupes.

But [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] aren’t content to leave religion as a mere object of ridicule. They want it cleansed from public life. And enlightened as they are, they’ve come up with quite the pretense for justifying the righteousness of their bigotry: they are defending the vision of our founding fathers from a dominionist conspiracy to establish Christianity as the state religion.

You see, for liberal [People Who Don't Believe In Gods], the only thing worse than religion is the Religious Right, a term they use to encompass all Christian conservatives. And what better way to siphon fuel from the Religious Right than to convince Americans that the government is perpetually on the verge of becoming a theocracy?

And so, they accuse local governments of trampling the Constitution in the name of God and they find subliminal Christian iconography in political ads. They wring new meanings from Thomas Jefferson’s notion of separation between church and state, and condemn our country’s motto and the status of Christmas as a national holiday. But above all, [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] stoke fear among religious and nonreligious alike that conservatives view government as a tool to force religion down your throat.

Pope-slandering buffoon Bill Maher, something of a patron saint among [People Who Don't Believe In Gods], has called religion “the ultimate hustle.” Last fall, Maher’s fellow liberal Chris Matthews, a self-described Catholic, roundly criticized Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for talking about prayer in a “secular environment” and complained that she made the Republican Party look more like a church tent than a big tent. In March, Matthews complained, “Why does everything sound like the ‘700 Club’ with this Party now?” Such examples of anti-religious bias can be found every day on cable news, network television, and in the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post.

As my politics strayed right of center after college, I realized I wanted no part of that Maher/Matthews worldview based in elitism and the ridicule of others. I made the transition from [A Person Who Doesn't Believe In Gods] to [a person who doesn't believe in gods] to agnostic, and have since discovered why it is often said that religion is experiential.

There was a time when I would have preferred any manner of torture to admitting the possibility of a higher power. These days, I’m proud to say I lost my faith in the [Person Who Doesn't Believe In Gods] creed.

Nope, still not getting it. Perhaps if I translated “secular” and “liberal” and “elitism” and “thinking” and “having a fucking clue” from their right-wing “meanings” I might have had more success.

Perhaps next time.

/hattip to The Barefoot Bum.

Possibly related posts:

  1. Like their gods Anyone who has read Dawkins’ The God Delusion will, in...
  2. Oh, FFS, here we go again… Yes, it’s that time of the month where someone decides...
  3. Dear Sir, this is my new religion I seem to have missed this the first time around,...

Jun 20

Over at RD.net today, someone has posted a petition:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to withdraw support for Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm, and education focused, yet ardently creationist establishment.

Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm (NAZF) is a zoo just outside Bristol that markets itself to schools and is heavily focused on child education.

However, instead of teaching well-established science, it promotes creationism.

The literature displayed at the zoo is hostile to Darwin and his theories and attempts to debunk techniques such as radio carbon dating and interpretation of the fossil record.

Much of this literature – which is presented as fact – contradicts science on the national curriculum, thereby actively damaging a child’s education. This can be evidenced on their website; however, this is much diluted compared the ardent creationist material on display at the zoo.

NAZF also uses the VisitBritian logo to market the zoo.

The stated aim of VisitBritain (Britain’s national tourism agency) is to market Britain worldwide and to develop England’s visitor economy.

By promoting the NAZF, with its creationist agenda and harmful educational materials, VisitBritian is damaging the reputation of the United Kingdom.

I’m a little of two minds over this. On one hand, I feel people should be able to believe any bat-shit insane proposition they like. On the other, the fact that the wingnuts behind this zoo are making inroads into schools (what the fuck does RE [religious "education" - a [s]tatutory subject with non-statutory programme of study] have to do with biology?) is not on for precisely the reasons that creationism isn’t already taught in science lessons: it’s not science.

As these two concerns are not necessarily mutually exclusive, the only reason that I’m signing this petition is for the second reason, and not the first.

I just wanted to make that clear.

I also think that the fourth paragraph (the one starting The literature displayed at the zoo…) is both superfluous and frames the petition badly. I do understand and appreciate why it’s there, although I wish it weren’t and think the petition would be better off for it.

Note: The petition is scheduled to close on the 26th June 2009 (six days [ha!] from the date of this post) so please sign it, and repost as far and wide as you can.

Possibly related posts:

  1. Petition: Up yours, islamic censorship Evil Burnee has made me aware of a new petition,...
  2. Number 10 responds to ‘no sharia’ petition The UK government has responded to a petition about sharia...
  3. Stephen Green: petition his petition Stephen “dogshit” Green, who I mentioned in an earlier post...

Jun 16

In a truly bizarre and ass-backwards world, I can imagine a crazy scenario where insane jews would be able to sue the company that maintains their holiday property if they install automatic motion-detector light systems… no, wait…

From the “You can’t make this shit up (unless you’re a religious nutter)” department:

A couple have taken legal action after claiming motion sensors installed at their holiday flat in Dorset breached their rights as Orthodox Jews.

Gordon and Dena Coleman said they cannot leave or enter their Bournemouth flat on the Sabbath because the hallway sensors automatically switch on lights.

The couple’s religious code bans lights and other electrical equipment being switched on during Jewish holidays.

They have now issued a county court writ claiming religious discrimination.

They also claim breach of their rights under the Equality Act 2006 and Human Rights Act 1998 and the case is due to be heard at Bournemouth County Court next month.

The light sensors were installed at Embassy Court in Gervis Road to save money and energy but the couple, who live in Hertfordshire, felt they breached their religious rules.

The Stupid, It Burns brightly (and comes on automatically) for these wingnuts.

Full article over at the BBC: Light sensors cause religious row.

Possibly related posts:

  1. The Telegraph: BBC supports Islam and attacks Christianity, says whinging git Yeah, it’s from The Torygraph. The BBC supports Islam and...
  2. BBC: WBC banned from entering the UK Further to my post yesterday that contained the news about...
  3. BBC: Unfinished hospital is ‘haunted’ If any further evidence were needed that, in general, people...

« Previous Entries