12/21/2011
Recycling garbage...
So, I opened my
Girlfriends in God email today and was treated to a recycled
story about a little boy and socks. What. They don't have enough
sappy stories? They're having to reuse them?
Mary Southerland
completely resubmitted an entire blog called "A
box of socks." And she pawned it off as new.
Last year, for some odd reason, she posted this blog on
August 5th. I know; I blogged a response to it. It's a
stupid story about socks and what Southerland mistakenly calls
Operation Shoebox.
She actually meant
Operation Christmas Child which does involve shoeboxes
filled with gifts (and a proselytizing tract, of course).
Operation Shoebox sends gifts to our troops.
Anyway, it's a story about some kind of charity gathering
where needy children open their shoeboxes and how a volunteer
was horrified to find one box had a bunch of socks in it, only
to find out the little boy who'd received it desperately needed,
and had prayed for, cotton socks.
It's so ridiculous, it elicited quite a response from me,
filled with all sorts of curse words. Holy Cow! Since
Southerland recycled her stupid story. I'll just recycle my
response. But you won't catch me trying to pass it off as new.
Here it is (and plug your ears if you don't like the F word).
08/05/2010
Wow! Two great Girlfriends in God emails in a ROW! I didn't
read this last one all that well, but here's the gist of the
stupid:
Lady is at charity event, giving kids boxes of stuff. Boy is
crying. Man volunteer approaches and asks what's wrong.
Boy's box is full of socks! (egad) Man volunteer tries to
help by saying he can exchange for box of candy and toys.
(egad!) Boy will not give up box. Turns out he has some kind
of fungus or something serious on his feet and they won't
heal unless he wears cotton socks but his mom can't afford
them and he's been praying for a box of socks for the
longest time and there it is! A box of cotton socks.
Can you give me a fucking break please? Once again, I think
my Girlfriend is LYING. What kind of disease can ONLY be
cured by the use of cotton socks? What kind of doctor would
NOT purchase at least one god-damned pair of cotton socks
for a little boy who needed them?
Give me a break. Why would attention, at a charity event,
not have been called to a little boy in desperate need of
cotton socks? What kind of charity allows people to donate
boxes without them looking to see what's in them? And what
kind of charity would not disperse the socks among several
boxes so that one kid wouldn't wind up with a box full of
socks?
See? This story is clearly fabricated! I'm not buying into
your stupid stories designed for two stupid purposes: 1. To
elicit emotion, through which your faith and belief deepen.
2. To show me what an ass your god is while you think he's
just peachy.
(You've all heard the grotesque story of the father whose
son and another boy were drowning and, apologizing to his
son, proceeded to save the other boy, because the other boy
wasn't "saved." Can you be more disgusting with your faith?)
And stop telling me about how important your stupid, trivial
prayers are to a god who lets children be murdered! It's
like, you're not even thinking. Aren't Christians capable of
big pictures? Can they only see their broken cell phone and
pray about it one minute, and then, completely forget how
stupid they just were for imagining their god gives a shit
about a cell phone, turn around a pray for a missing child
or world peace or the starving, suffering in Haiti??
You people do not make any sense. And neither does your god,
who deigns to help you find your missing keys in time for
you to make it to the job interview, but not a missing child
before she's raped and mutilated.
And don't even dare try to tell me there's a reason.
That felt just as good the second time around. And speaking
of stupid prayer requests. On a private forum today, someone
created a post asking for prayers so that her application to a
rescue organization for a Daschund would be granted, over the
other applicants' apps, of course. Does the applicant with the
most prayers win?
PS--Trying to quote with blogger sucks.
You can respond to this post at blogger!
12/16/2011
Christopher Hitchens...
"The only position that leaves me with no cognitive
dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed. Death is certain,
replacing both the siren-song of Paradise and the dread of Hell.
Life on this earth, with all its mystery and beauty and pain, is
then to be lived far more intensely: we stumble and get up, we
are sad, confident, insecure, feel loneliness and joy and love.
There is nothing more; but I want nothing more."
--Christopher Hitchens in The Portable
Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer, 2007
I'm very sad today. I read something and laughed
and it felt wrong. But I think Hitch would have wanted me to
laugh...really loud.
12/12/2011
Let me consult my attorney on that....
When I first heard about the
conflict at Atheists of Florida (AoF), I was surprised. I
received an email stating that EllenBeth Wachs and John Kieffer
had been not only ousted from their positions on the board of
directors, but expelled from the organization itself. I guess
I'd characterize my first thoughts as, "Are they out of their
minds?"
I don't know Wachs or Kieffer, but I've
certainly been aware of John Kieffer by reputation for some
time. He's a strong activist for atheist rights and separation
of religion and government. I knew him as the president of AoF
and I was glad to be a member of the organization. (I still am,
whichever one is the real one.)
I was...confused about Wachs. She is clearly a
strong supporter of religious freedom. Courageous. Outspoken.
All those things you want activists to be. But, there were
other issues that made me just a tad uncomfortable. Just a
TAD, I said. Only a little. I brushed off these feelings
because, well, we're not all type "relax," right? (I'M not even
type relax!)
So, after receiving the email accusing Wachs and
Kieffer of wrongdoings within the org, I got on Facebook and
visited their pages, hoping to find some explanation for what
had happened. What on earth had happened??
I didn't get much information. I got a lot of
outrage from Wachs, nothing that I recall from Kieffer. But a
man named Rob Curry posted a Facebook note criticizing what had
happened. In it, Curry claimed that Ed Golly and the board acted
outside the bylaws of the organization to oust Wachs and Kieffer
and hijacked a meeting to do so.
Naturally, we were all outraged along with Wachs,
Kieffer, and Curry. The group appeared to be split up, with
Kieffer and/or Wachs controlling the Meetup and the website--and
the rest of the board having little but the name they claimed as
their own.
I didn't think very highly of this Ed Golly
person at that point, that's for sure.
Finally, we heard from this Ed Golly person and
the remaining board via the
December
newsletter (The original link to the newsletter no longer
works. AoF claims that it has removed the online version of the
newsletter due to "illicit interference." A print copy is
available on request. But
here's a cached copy.) The entire newsletter is devoted to explaining
concisely what had happened, when it happened, what bylaws Wachs
and Kieffer violated, and all the actions AoF declared
inappropriate. They explained why they did what they did. And it
all made sense.
They didn't call anyone names or sound outraged.
However, the newsletter does state, "It should be noted that
during the brief time Wachs had assumed the role of Acting
President, she had adopted a totalitarian, bullying attitude
toward the board, leading to immediate infighting between
herself, the board, and general members."
But for the most part, they simply laid out
their case in a reasonable and documented manner.
So, I wrote about it at Examiner. I explained to my readers
the gist of the newsletter and AoF's case against Wachs and
Kieffer. And let's face it, it doesn't look good from that
viewpoint. I did not include statements such as the one above
about Wachs as an individual. And I expected that at some point,
Wachs and Kieffer, or at least Rob Curry, would respond in kind.
All I've heard so far in response, from Curry
mostly, is basically that they're just wrong. Curry claims that
the bylaws do not say what Golly and the remaining board say
they do.
Curry keeps saying, read the bylaws. But I can't
find any bylaws to read. (Actually, I finally found
a
copy of the bylaws at Scribd. They were apparently posted
there by EllenBeth Wachs on December 10. They are not dated.
Nonetheless, it appears they were accurately quoted by AoF, in
their newsletter.) And reading them now wouldn't matter
because who knows if and/or when they might have been
compromised?
So I do not know who to believe at this point. I
tried to be as delicate as I could in my article--citing the
reasonable and rather damning nature of AoF's case as presented,
while trying not to sound as if it had completely convinced
me--which it had not. I did my best to stay off sides, let's
just say.
Then I received this email from EllenBeth Wachs
(it's rather long and in its entirety):
From: EllenBeth
Wachs
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 6:14 PM
To: catspah@cfl.rr.com
Subject: RE: Google Alert - ellenbeth wachs
Diana-
I am rather shocked and disappointed that you would print this
without even contacting me.
EllenBeth Wachs
From: Google Alerts [mailto:googlealerts-noreply@google.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 12:36 PM
To: MyCatsareMyGods@gmail.com
Subject: Google Alert - ellenbeth wachs
News
1 new result for ellenbeth wachs
Atheists of Florida takes its case to its members
Examiner.com
When Atheists of Florida (AoF) ousted its president and vice
president, John Keiffer and EllenBeth Wachs, last month, many of
its members were left ...
First, I just want to point out that EllenBeth Wachs has a
Google Alert for her own name. I recognize this because I have
one for my name, too. So, if you write about me, I will find
out. Heh heh. Second, she misspelled my name. Third, EllenBeth
Wachs was, for some odd reason, shocked and disappointed that I
would print my article without even contacting her.
Why? (Which is exactly what I said in response.) Why would I
contact her? Why is she shocked and disappointed, like we're old
friends or something, and I'd betrayed her?
So, I responded letting her know that I just pretty much
reiterated what the newsletter said, laid it out for my readers,
etc. I didn't think it was a big deal.
She posted my response in the comments section of my article.
And here's the email I got back:
From: EllenBeth
Wachs
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:23 PM
To: 'Dianna'
Cc: 'Rob Curry'
Subject: RE: Google Alert - ellenbeth wachs
“I saw the article as pretty much a reiteration of what the
newsletter said”
Yes, Dianna, that is very apparent and that is precisely the
problem when you make statements such as you just did or such as
the following:
“Ed Golly's reasoned response “ or “The board of AoF has stated
a reasonable and documented case for their actions,”
You have done an opinion piece making a judgment call about the
issue without bothering to get the other side of the story.
Do you want to be considered a legitimate journalist or someone
that merely does propaganda?
EllenBeth
Okay, so reiterating what the newsletter said is somehow a
problem because I claimed that said newsletter was "reasonable
and documented." That right there folks, is the definition of
propaganda! LOL.
As to getting the other side of the story, so far the other
side is this: They're lying. There, I did my journalistic duty.
Unfortunately, as EllenBeth had posted the first part of this
email exchange in the comments section of my article, instead of
emailing her a response, I posted there, in reply to her
original post. And that response has (miraculously, dare I say)
gone missing. Basically I said I understood she was upset about
this whole issue, but saying that my saying that a reasonable
and documented case was reasonable and documented was propaganda
was just a tad over the top.
So, here's what she wrote back:
From: EllenBeth
Wachs
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 9:56 AM
To: 'Dianna'
Subject: RE: Google Alert - ellenbeth wachs
You think I am highly upset? What would you expect especially
when a so-called “journalist” is so obviously biased. It was
hardly over the top to call your piece propaganda. In fact, I
consulted with an attorney and used the words he provided and
took his suggestion to post your email right under your Golly
promotional.
Okay. So. LOL. She consulted an attorney about my article?
And he told her it was propaganda? And he told her to post my
email response in the comments section of the article? LOL.
And she called my article, which was pretty much nothing but
a statement of what AoF said in their newsletter, a "Golly
promotional." Well, sure, I guess if I'm reporting on what Golly
said, I guess I'm Golly promoting! If I were to report Wachs'
response, wouldn't I then be Wachs promoting? Of course. Well,
in Wachs world, anyway.
I have to wonder how much this consultation cost and who is
paying for it. LOL.
And I have to wonder if I'd printed an article based on Wachs'
outlining of her case against AoF (something I've yet to see),
she would still call me a "so-called" journalist, and,
naturally, a Wachs promoter.
The funniest part of this whole thing is that I write
commentary! But there just isn't much to say about a reasonable
and documented case beyond well, look at this reasonable and
documented case. We're all still waiting for the other side to
present theirs.
I'm still not sure what's going on at AoF, who's right, or
who's wrong. But I know one thing: I don't think very highly of
EllenBeth Wachs right about now. But we were on that slope
anyway, weren't we?
LOL.
(updated 12/19/2011)
You can comment on this post at blogger!
11/06/2011
When I read that the Parents Television Council (PTC) was
incensed that the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled that Janet
Jackson's nipple didn't merit a fine for CBS, I was instantly
reminded of the television show
Work of Art: The Next Great
American Artist.
Not only was a nipple shown on the
Pop Art episode, there were
two. And they were attached to breasts. Several times during the
show, the audience got to see quite a bit of nipples and
breasts. But when I watched the re-run of that episode the next
week, the nipples were all blurred out like they were too gory
or upsetting for the general public to see (like they blur out
victims' faces on The First 48)
continue reading...
Dianne Carlisle, of Euclid, Ohio, claims there
are
ghosts having sex in her house. She has pictures to prove
it. Taken by her four year old daughter with her mother's cell
phone, the pictures appear to be coming out of the television.
You can clearly see a tiny man's backside. Carlisle claims other
parts of the ghostly wisps are a woman's legs, her feet clad in
stilettos.
This is explosive news for the paranormal world. This changes
everything we know about ghosts!
Read the whole article, Ghost sex: It will rock your
paranormal world, here...
11/05/2011
I came across a great blog today, at Patheos, called
Slacktivist
and the entry was called
The kingdom of God is like a practical joke. Naturally that
intrigued me, right? But it wasn't at all what it suggested.
Slacktivist Fred Clark tells us about the church youth group he
belonged to when he was young. In the fall, they'd get together
and rake people's yards in sort of an in-and-out
before-we-get-caught raid. It was a lot of fun, they helped
people out, and they remained anonymous.
This, to me, is what charity is all about. It's
not about the church, or the people doing it; it's about the act
itself. When you add a evangelical pamphlet tucked under the
front porch mat (or worse yet, with a yard sign--see comments on
the blog), you invalidate the work--you dirty it, somehow. You
show that you weren't doing it out of genuine desire to help
others, but you were doing it to aggrandize yourself in the eyes
of your god.
Take, for example,
Operation Christmas Child, run by the religious "charitable"
organization
Samaritan's Purse, and affiliated with Billy Graham
Ministries. They put together boxes of gifts for needy children
in 100 countries! Isn't that sweet?
But they include in the box of presents, a
pamphlet with an evangelical Christian message. They, thus,
negate the good they're doing with their efforts to proselytize.
It's not good enough to make a child happy--they must be sure
the child knows it was they who did it and they make certain the
child knows what they believe about God.
See the article I wrote about this here!
10/31/2011
I got my canned response to the We the People petition
regarding "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It basically
said, "thanks for signing a petition...we really don't care."
Then I found this article today:
White House Responds To ‘We The People’ Petitions, People
Respond With Petitions To Take Petitions Seriously
I've been trying to log in and sign the petition to have them
take the petitions seriously for a while now and it won't work
for me. Like it would do any good anyway.
10/29/2011
Well, Halloween is nearly here and it's time to amp up the
paranormal nonsense.
Elsa Cook at Paranormal Old Pueblo has published an article
entitled, "How do you know if you've encountered a ghost?"
One's first reaction might be, "If you have to ask, you haven't
encountered one," but we'll give the ghost hunters the benefit
of the doubt on this one.
Here are some of the signs...
Russell Moore, writing for Christianity.com claims that Hell
Houses simply don't work. His number one reason? They're not
scary enough.
Read more...
Bob Kellogg of One News Now, a "news"
organization affiliated with the American Family Association,
claims that the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) demanded
that a school assembly in Fort Worth, Texas be canceled, "simply
because the presenters are Christians."
Isn't there a Commandment about lying?
Why isn't Russell Baptist Church in Green Cove Springs, Florida
enough for Pastor Ron Baker? Why is he not content with his
full-service ministry there? Why must he insist on visiting the
local public elementary school once a week to preach to other
people's children?
Find out why...
10/23/2011
Jo McGowan writes a very nice article about the futility of
proselytizing in "God-spotting:
Can we make a case for the Almighty?"
I have to agree with her that the attempts at
making a case for one's god and religion have led to wars,
crusades, and much bloodshed.
During the Inquisition, not only was Christianity enforced, but
only one kind of Christianity would do. In Nazi Germany the same
logic applied. The Sunnis and the Shiites, the Arabs and the
Jews, the Hindus and the Muslims—do we need more examples of the
divisiveness of faith, the deep and enduring chasms just waiting
for us to fall into?
...But we have come to the end of the road for making a case for
God, at least in the traditional sense. The age of
evangelization and the propagation of the faith is over. Holy
wars, crusades, fatwas, and edicts—let them all die a natural
death. A God who needs a case to be made on his behalf is no God
at all.
Who couldn't agree with all of that? McGowan
comes across as a thoughtful writer, which is all the more
concerning considering some of the things she says at the
beginning of her article.
The values of an atheistic society communicate themselves to us
in so many thousands of small and subtle ways we cannot expect
to always be on guard against them, even if we want to. The
legal ban on state-sponsored religious displays at Christmas is
just the tip of a very absurd iceberg. How we think about babies
and marriage, how we look after our parents, what decisions we
make when a person is critically ill, how we choose a career,
how we think about sexual relations—all have been shaped and
re-drawn according to new standards, standards that make
reference to science, logic, and reason, not religious beliefs.
It's almost as if McGowan is lamenting the use
of science, logic, and reason in dealing with these issues. She
understands the wrongness that can be done when one faith tries
to force itself on others large scale, resulting in wars,
crusades, etc. But when it comes to state-sponsored Christmas
displays, she now doesn't understand why forcing your faith on
others through government is a bad idea. The tip of a "very
absurd iceberg?" Seriously?
Babies and marriage? Surely she's talking about
abortion and gay rights--civil rights issues where science,
logic, and reason must guide our laws--not someone's religious
opinions that might differ wildly from another's.
It's as if McGowan is saying, let's all stop
fighting over which religion is the right religion and just
start putting the generic "god's" policies into government. We
can't make people choose our religion, but we can make everyone
follow our religious ideals.
Typical. And disappointing.
10/22/2011
I see that my
first prediction has come true. The world is still here.
Here is a church sign we saw in Titusville a
week or so ago.
Now, at first, you might think, "hmm, maybe
they're humanists or something." But no. The
Abundant
Life Fellowship of Titusville, Florida is a
non-denominational Christian church. They're believers. Make no
mistake about it.
So, this sign isn't really saying what they wish
it was saying. They think that if you just believe enough, hard
enough, and claim that you are certain of your beliefs, it's the
same thing as knowing. So, just believe so much that
Jesus is the way to salvation, and that your god exists, and
bing, badda bing, you know it. And as everybody knows,
knowing your beliefs are true makes them so much truer than just
believing they're true!
In reality, of course, knowing is so much
better than believing. When you stick with what can be known,
factually, you live a reality-based life free of superstition,
and free of the fear that you might have chosen the wrong thing
to believe, the wrong church, the wrong interpretation, etc.
(These doubts are exactly why Christians must try to convince
themselves that they don't just believe, they know.)
If you just stick with what can be known, you
are intellectually honest; and naturally, therefore, more honest
with others as well.
Typically, when you go to the website of a small
church like this one, you assume that the person speaking to you
is the pastor of the church or at least a combination of he and
his wife and senior officials. So, this website was particularly
funny in that pastor Wayne Gray describes himself as "a man of
God and a true gift to the body of Christ." Way to be humble.
"When Pastor Wayne ministers, he operates under
a prophetic mantle and flows in revelation and understanding."
Sounds like a roaring good time. Why are they
always Pastor Wayne and Pastor Buddy--called by their fist
names? It makes them come off as creepy and a little perverted.
And here's a picture I took at the Biltmore Mall
in West Asheville. The mall has been turned into something like
an upscale, indoor, flea market. I was so taken with this
particular storefront I had to get my camera out:
And they mean totally.
Totally
Christian Karate has locations in Asheville and Miami. Their
"why
we do it" page consists of nothing but Bible scripture. Way
to explain yourself, Mr. Mitch. And there it is again. The guy,
Mitch Freistat, clearly prefers to be called Mr. Mitch. You
work with kids and like to be called Mr. Insert First Name Here?
It's creepy, people. Stop doing it.
10/21/2011
Well, it's a big day today, isn't it? Today is the day the
world will end.
Harold Camping said so--after he said it would end last May
and it didn't. Oops. No, er, sorry. Did the math wrong. October.
October 21st. That's when it'll end. Yep. That's the date.
I am going to make a wild prediction right here
on Atheist View, so listen up!
Prediction: the world will not end today. Not
only that, the world will not end in 2012 either. The world is
going to keep going and going and going and Jesus is never going
to show up because he probably never existed in the first place
and if he did, he's dead now.
That all gave me a story idea:
OAE prediction: The world will not end today
Eees funny. Go read it.
And
Pat
Robertson says everybody who takes anti-depressants is an
atheist. He also insinuates that all atheists are taking
anti-depressants. What an odd little man.
10/16/2011
At the gas station today, we saw
RAVEN. They were
basically a bunch of nerd kids, all wearing black t-shirts with
a variety of sayings all having to do with Jesus. A lot of them
were chowing down on pizza just outside the convenience store,
not very mannerly, I must say. One of the young men walked
toward the van that was pulling a trailer with their logo on it.
As he did, he tossed some trash onto the roof that shaded the
gas pumps. I think it was something biodegradable, but still.
So, when I got home and looked them up on the
Internet tubes, I went to the "live services" page and was
treated to an ad for
Jack
Daniels Tennessee Honey: Fly straight; drink responsibly.
Too funny.
10/12/2011
That Jeffries guy: “Do we want a candidate who is a
good moral person, or do we want a candidate who is a born-again
follower of Jesus Christ?"
I can't believe he actually said that! That is
so Freudian it gives me the goose bumps. Hilarious. I might be
laughing all day over this one.
10/06/2011
Scott McMan over at GhostTheory.com posted
the story of one "Roseann" in hopes that someone might have
the expertise to help her explain what's been going on in her
life.
McMan says, "We are in no way presenting this as
specifically paranormal in nature as Roseann is trying to remain
logical as she explores every available possibility."
So, he admits plainly that resorting to
paranormal explanations is illogical. Naturally I would agree.
But I wonder if McMan is aware of the meaning of his own
statement.
10/05/2011
Fabulous article at
Christianity.com today called
Do-it-yourself religion. Chuck Colson whines about how,
according to a new book by
George Barna, Futurecast, only 7% of Americans agree
with the "seven essential Christian doctrines."
What are these seven essential doctrines one must believe to be
a true Christian? They come from the
National Association of Evangelicals' Statement of Faith.
Colson is so very upset that so many people are
just creating their own religions and believing whatever they
want. He's all for freedom of religion, he says, but speaking to
Christians, ya'll better get back into the fold!
What's so funny about this to me is that
Christianity has always been a do-it-yourself religion. From the
very beginning there were arguments and dissension. Who do you
suppose the
Christian Gnostics were? Or rather,
are? Who are
Protestants, anyway? You're all Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists,
Catholics--both Roman and Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian, and on
and on. And within those subgroups you have more subgroups.
Christians can't agree on anything. And here's
Chuck Colson to tell you all to get back on the boat. His boat,
of course.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE WICCANS doing the
same thing.
Star Foster complains that Andrew Bowen of
Project Conversion
is being misled by his Wiccanator mentor and isn't being taught
real Wicca. No, no. Star Foster, as she explains with a brief
summary of her study and sacrifice to become initiated, is a
REAL witch.
And what's more, once you become a real witch
like Star is about ready to do...you can't take it back. Or as
she says, "no backsies."
That's right. Being a witch is just like being a
Catholic. They will never, ever let you leave.
And don't think that Star is just making this
Wicca stuff up out of her head. Nope. They have a book too! The
Book of Shadows! So, if you don't believe in that book (in the
same way Star does, I guess) then forget about it. Never mind
about being a good witch or a bad witch; you're not a real witch
at all.
10/04/2011
Hello October!
Check out Whiteville, TN Mayor James Bellar. He
calls the FFRF "terrorists" for complaining about a cross of the
city's water tower. What a smart Christian! Then he says that an
individual has offered to take the cross and display it on his
private property, from which the cross would be more visible.
October 3, 2011
Brown v. Jeffs: Civil rights and plural marriage
When the US Supreme Court found Texas sodomy
laws unconstitutional with Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin
Scalia dissented saying, "laws against bigamy, same-sex
marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery,
fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable
only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on
moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into
question by today’s decision."
Masturbation? Really? Adultery and fornication? What century
are we in?
continue reading
09/29/2011
LifeSiteNews ran an article today titled, "Study
finds marriage increases self-control, may reduce crime."
Either they're turning around and beginning to
support gay marriage...or they're just being mean now.
09/28/2011
Gary E. Yates at Christianity.com has taken it upon himself
to explain unanswered prayer. He starts out with a little story
about Dale Earnhardt praying with his pastor before the race in
which Dale crashed and died.
Yates goes on to ask some very important
questions:
We
have all had the experience of unanswered prayer. We pray for
God's healing for a loved one. We pray for God to bring revival
and renewal to our churches. We pray for the suicide bombings
to end and for our troops to come home. Why does nothing seem
to change when God has promised us, "Ask and you will receive"?
Is Jesus being totally truthful when he tells us, "If you ask me
anything in my name, I will do it"?
We are expecting Yates to explain this to us:
Why? Why does nothing change when God has promised us?
But, as we well know, Yates can not explain this
conundrum. Great theologians have pontificated on this very
subject and have said just what Yates is about to blather about.
And yet, the question remains. Yates forges on like a trouper,
telling us that we need to maintain our perspective in the face
of "silence of heaven."
Yates' explanation is as follows:
Continue reading...
09/27/2011
Today I received an email from
LifeSiteNews. They're
a pro-life group out of Canada. They send me links to news
articles about abortion and such. (The "and such" is gay
rights.* Those two issues really wad their panties in knots.)
Unfortunately, most, if not all (I don't pay that much
attention) of the articles are written by the LifeSiteNews team
and are only published at their website. I generally look for a
wider range of work.
Anyway, this email introduced me to the
LifeSiteNews team! Nice! I'd put the picture right here for you
to see, but I'm afraid it would violate a copyright. But I found
this
web link for you. This email was sent out as part of their
regular series of requests for money. You'll have to scroll down
through that to see them.
Notice that all but one of the LifeSiteNews team
are men.
Why did this surprise me?
*Okay, according to the website these are the
things that upset these big men: abortion, bioethics,
contraception, culture of life, euthanasia, faith, family,
freedom, homosexuality, and stem cells.
I am always amazed (you see a pattern here with
my naivetè) at people trying to restrict others' freedoms
claiming they're all about freedom.
09/24/2011
Well, all that wondering about Chris Holly is over. The
woman is definitely loony. Check out her latest blog on
The Mystery of the Invasive Red Orbs. Totally off the wall.
She actually believes she had contact with an alien against her
will! And she woke up groggy the next morning. Woot!
09/20/2011
I'm starting to wonder about
Chris Holly over at UFO
Digest. I wrote an
Examiner article about her in July because she was talking
weird about skeptics. She sounds like she believes that she
alone, or at least she and her elite cadre, has possession of
some "truth" that the majority just won't believe. Worse, they
mock her!
Everywhere, for Holly, there is evidence of
aliens. And if you don't believe her, you're close minded to
reality! This sounds so familiar.
Anyway, last week she wrote another article in
which she rails against skeptics. I didn't think this one
warranted an article at Examiner, but I did want to write
something about it. It looks like Chris Holly is suffering from
a persecution complex.
In her latest article, she says she's offering
advice on "how to ask about UFOs without ridicule and laughter."
But she's not really talking about "asking." Asking is a pretty
humble thing. She's most likely talking about making
unsubstantiated claims and getting shot down.
This is evident in her advice about pointing at
something in the sky. Don't say, "Hey [sic] look at that UFO,"
or, "Is that thing over there in the dark glowing [sic] a
ghost?" Instead, don't scare the people right away; just point
and say, "What is that?"
So, basically, Holly is upset that she can't go
out in public and just tell people that the aliens are coming
without most of them calling her out on her irrational beliefs.
And I get it. Everywhere, Christians and other religionists get
to spout off about all sorts of things for which they have no
evidence and for the most part, they're left alone.
Granted, in this new age of the Internet tubes,
religious nonsense is getting a run for its money. But, at least
in the United States, god-belief is still accepted as normal.
UFO's and aliens...not so much. Still, there are quite a lot of
people out there who believe in them. There's a lot of talk
about ghosts and Bigfoot these days, too. (Just watch tv!) The
Internet is doing wonders for the Chris Holly types.
But, that's just not enough for Holly. Instead
of offering evidence for her assertions, she's decided to go on
the offensive. Never, ever bring up the paranormal at a party,
she says. You'll be humiliated by skeptics.
Skeptics, in Holly's view: are huge loudmouths;
they insult, or point fingers at, anyone who brings up the
paranormal; are morons; are out to protect their own ignorance;
are bullies; loud-mouthed fools; they attack what they do not
know; will fight to the death (yes, she said that!) to not
expand their limited thinking or opinions; are "extremely close
minded people without much vision past a very black and white
concept of all things."
Sounds a bit over the top, don't you think? One
has to wonder what Chris Holly does at a party to elicit such
reactions. Just ask questions? I doubt it.
She goes on: "With all of that said, I never
discuss the unknown with a skeptic nor do I ask for their
opinions or try to convince them of a new way of thinking. I do
not have time for skeptics."
Well, that's one way to never learn anything
new, to, shall we say, remain close-minded, lacking any vision
past a very black and white concept of all things, and refuse to
expand one's limited thinking or opinions. Hmm.
09/16/2011
Finally, another
Girlfriends in God worth talking about. After months of
bore-me-to-death pablum religiosity, my girlfriend
Gwen Smith sent out a
nice little bit of what I'm sure she considers Godly, and
comforting, wisdom. It all boils down to, basically, "shut up."
Gwen tells us about her friend (they always have
these friends, don't they?) who struggles "to believe God’s
promises and feels helpless to the circumstances of her trial.
She prays – but wonders if God no longer listens to her. She
daily looks for the light at the end of the trial-tunnel, yet
sees none."
In other words, the woman is going through a
really bad time and she's turning to God for help. Isn't God
supposed to help? Isn't that what all the hype is? Just pray.
Get together with others and pray. God promises to help!
But of course, as we all know, the answer to our
prayers sometimes is a big fat, "NO." No, I won't be curing this
little child of cancer. No, I won't be saving this child from
the murderer. No. Nope. Not this time.
Of course, Gwen's Christian friend keeps asking
and waiting and waiting for an answer. She's not even getting a
no. She's getting nothing. Meanwhile she's losing hope,
struggling for just a light of hope at the end of what seems a
long, dark tunnel.
Now, all rational people know that she's not
getting any feedback because she's talking to herself. Any ideas
on how to move forward out of her predicament will come from her
own mind, or from the help of others, which she will inevitably
attribute to God. But right now, and apparently for some time
now, she's gotten nothing. Nada. Zip. A big fat silence from her
invisible friend.
Gwen knows why. It's right there in the Bible. God very
often likes to make suffering people just wait. Just wait. Until
God is damn good and ready. That's right. In his own jolly time.
I have to wonder why Christians bother. They
never really get any answer. They pray and then things just
happen. They have to figure out what the answer was by the
events that take place. The dude apparently says no a lot. And
sometimes he doesn't say anything at all--the situation just
festers. But you're still supposed to give him credit and
absolutely no blame. It's like he's not even real. He's just a
little crutch you use to separate yourself from having to accept
that shit happens and sometimes you struggle for a long time
before things start to look up. Or down, as is often the case.
So, quit your bitchin', Gwen's friend. The big guy
will get to you when he's good and ready--or not; you'll just
have to keep waiting to see. In the meantime, good luck with
whatever it is that's troubling you. Maybe Gwen can offer more
than a "just shut up and wait," next time.
Here's the best part. The title of Gwen's little
devotional is this: When nothing is there.
That's very apropos. Nothing is there. Why not
stop looking to some supposedly omnipotent being (who, let's
face it, could fix things if he really wanted to in an instant)
to help you and start trying to find real help. A counselor,
maybe. Friends (not Gwen!), loved ones. Or maybe just taking a
deep look into yourself for the strength that can help you find
your way out.
07/20/2011
Expelling Demons Through Yawns, Burps, Mucus, Saliva & Barf At
N.Y. Church
Okay. That just takes the cake...doesn't it? And barfs it right
back up again.
Pastor John Goguen: "People need to get over the
hump of...this looks weird. But God uses it, we find, to humble
people...for them to finally admit that they may not know
everything."
Uh, yeah, you look pretty foolish.
Goguen: "The barn door goes eeeeeeeccchhh...it
opens and we don't know how many spirits come in. The devil
wants us in bondage."
Demons come in through tattooes! Ouija boards,
martial arts! "If you're breathing" you have evil spirits in
you!
So, they barf and spit and attack each other in
church each Sunday to make it all go away...for a week.
07/16/2011
Ah, the billboard at
Eastminster Presbyterian Church in Indialantic, Florida:
So many comments, so little time:
1. At least the Terminator was true to his word.
2. Of course, they're both fictional characters.
3. He said, "I'll be back," not "I will be
back."
4. You're comparing Jesus to the Terminator??
07/03/2011
Wow!
Hobby Lobby has
taken out
full page ads in newspapers across the country quoting
Thomas Jefferson. The quote
they used comes
from A Summary View of the Rights of British America,
a missive to the King of England in 1774.
The quote as published reads: GOD who gave us
LIFE gave us LIBERTY.
The problem with the quote is that it leaves out
one tiny, but very important word: the.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at
the same time."
That omission may seem minor, but it is not, and
it is calculated. "The" God could be any god...it's whatever god
that did give us life. "God" is the Christian God of the Bible.
They left the word out on purpose.
I remember when I was in Denver for a year in
1999; I shopped at Hobby Lobby a couple of times (not
impressed). One time, for some reason, I visited their website
only to find that they were very religious and used their
business to proselytize. I dashed off a complaint by email--not
something I'd bother with these days.
My complaint was answered by someone in public
relations, I guess. I can't remember his name now but we
exchanged quite a few emails about religion for quite some time.
While we were friendly, he did manage to insult me at least
once, saying he felt sorry for my children because they were
growing up without an awe of the world. I was like, wtf? Are you
serious? And I did correct him about the awe atheists feel about
the world and the universe every day.
I remember he told me that he knew there was a
god because his wife suffered from debilitating arthritis and
she prayed for healing and hasn't felt any pain since. Right.
Anyway, Hobby Lobby,
Hemispheres,
and Mardel Stores want you
to know that if you "would like to know Jesus as lord and
savior," you can call "Need Him
Ministries." LOL.
07/01/2011
I've finally gotten back into writing Examiner articles.
Here are my latest:
Miami Beach to get a dose of atheist patriotism
Jewish Voice Editor attempts to solve gay marriage "crisis"
Author: love gays enough to deny them their rights
06/27/2011
I just have one little problem with
Bob Etier's
article,
Being Christian: another perspective on same-sex marriage.
She starts out whining about how misunderstood
she is as a Christian. People assume they know what she believes
and assume she believes like all other Christians, etc. She
calls her detractors "sharks" and their criticisms "attacks."
And then she goes on to readily admit that many
Christians are not only hateful toward gays, but offer up
invalid arguments against same-sex marriage. She seems to be
trying to lessen their impact by saying "maybe some" Christians
are like that.
Christians often have this mentality that they
are being attacked unfairly, as if people who don't agree with
them are creating wildly ridiculous and fake caricatures with no
real basis in reality. What do they think we're doing? Making
this stuff up? Creating a theology in our heads and putting
words into people's mouths? No.
Sorry about the truth, Bob, but the Christians
with the loudest voices, the ties to government, and the most
power and wealth are giving you and your kind a really, really
bad name. Don't blame us. Don't turn around and belittle us by
calling us "sharks" and labeling our disagreements with these
wackos as "attacks" against you.
If you don't agree with the wackos, wonderful!
We're not talking about you.
Otherwise, great article.
06/25/2011
Here it is! The apparently perpetual "Jesus will save you
only believe sale!"
(side of store in Titusville, FL)
06/19/2011
Bravo, Frank Ranelli! Over at OpEd News, in his article,
Theistic bigotry: The reality of denying fantasy, he says:
"Indeed, when the courage to exclaim openly
one's confirmation of mere reality leads to palpable
prejudice--rather than to stay hidden in the shadows of ancient
dogma for societal acceptance, then one thing becomes abundantly
clear: faith needs more criticism and scrutiny, not less."
You wonder why I spend my time doing this (and
enjoying it, which really pisses people off). Well this is why.
06/18/2011
I found something odd yesterday. I was searching a forum for
an old bit of craziness
(02/013/2010) I got myself involved in some time ago. And I
found a comment there that I missed. I believe I left the
discussion long before that point, while the posters argued
about whether or not I was right to post my personal feelings on
my website when it involved that particular forum.
The woman who sent me a private email posted all
of our email correspondence in the forum and someone else said
this about it:
"I understand the nature of the debate, I've
seen it done many times in college (and it's most effective when
written). First you reduce the intelligence of the person you
disagree with by correcting their spelling and pointing out
their grammatical errors. Then once you've done this you
articulate your point of view to your target audience."
I was confused at that. It has never been, to my
knowledge, an appropriate tactic in debate to belittle the
intelligence of one's opponent. In fact, it's a logical fallacy:
ad hominem. When you attack the person, you've left the
argument. Whether or not a person can spell and use correct
grammar has nothing at all to do with whether or not she is
correct about there being a god.
And while the person who said this agreed that I
had the right to post what I did where I did, and so I don't
mean to come at her personally, I beg to differ with her.
First of all, what few people seem to ever get
is that Christians, all the time, all the time, all the time,
begin discussions with atheists by insulting them. If I was a
sweet, gentle, pathetic person, I would just let it slide. But
I'm not. If you insult me, I don't like you very much. And if I
don't like you very much, I'm going to pick on you. Sorry. But
you asked for it.
So, let's be clear (and you'll notice the truth
of it if you look at my comments page), I do not pick on people
who are nice to me. I only pick on belligerent assholes.
Does that make me a reactionary? A person who
can't control her emotions? I don't think so. I enjoy doing it.
It pleases me. Why? Because I'm a grammarian. Which brings us to
point number two:
I pick on people's grammar and spelling mistakes
because I'm persnickety about spelling and grammar, not JUST
because I'm a bitch. (And yes, I'm not stupid; I KNOW the
dangers of being a grammarian. It has to happen sometimes that I
make mistakes of my own.)
So, I just wanted to let it be known: I do not
pick on your stupidity because of some debate tactic. I'm not
belittling your intelligence to gain an upper hand; I do it
because I like to do it.
I am not debating people who send me comments.
In my opinion, a debate is more formal than answering someone's
stupid questions in an email.
06/17/2011
I finally opened up the blog archive. It's a funny story,
really. What happened was this: I called my aunt a fundie loon.
It wasn't very nice, or funny (that's not the funny part of this
story). I can't say why I did it, except that I can be an ass
sometimes. But anyway, I guess I freaked out a little bit after
that happened, and I thought, wow, I sure am an ass. So I purged
the site of all my blogs--granted, this new redesign didn't have
all the really old blogs on it anyway--and started fresh as a
nice person who didn't get personal on her website anymore.
Well, glancing over the blogs of old it occurred
to me that the blog was a lot more fun when I got personal.
So, they're all there in the archive. Way back
when I started, I didn't sound like I was having fun at all. But
they get better. I can't find the blog where I called my aunt a fundie loon. I was going to leave
that one out so as not to insult my aunt any more than I already
have, which brings up the perplexing question....is telling you
that I called my aunt a fundie loon (three times now) insulting
her in the same way? I can't tell.
I haven't written any Examiner articles in a
while. I've been extremely busy with Zumba, writing, and
shopping for the upcoming Zumba instructors' convention (uh,
yeah, that takes a LOT of time!).
And I have to say, I've been a little bit sick
of the whole religion thing. But, I'll get back to lambasting
losers as soon as I can.
05/08/2011 again:
Wow. I'm really sorry! I had no idea I'd
forgotten to post so many comments. And such wonderful ones too!
Well, all caught up now and I promise to get them posted pronto
from now on.
05/08/2011
First, I apologize to the few people who have sent comments
in the last few months. I will get those (the ones I can find,
anyway) posted as soon as I can. I'm just lazy.
In the news:
What the heck is up with
Ellen Beth Wachs? The Florida atheist is getting arrested
right and left. I don't know exactly how I feel about it. I
mean, on the one hand, she's making atheists look pretty bad.
She doesn't appear to be the nicest person. But, I've often said
(mostly in reference to Madalyn Murray O'Hair--or is it O'Hare?)
that it takes enormous cajones to be an outspoken
atheist. So those of us who are, aren't going to be the nicest
people you've ever met.
On the other hand, wtf? She's arrested for using
"esq." after her name? And now she's arrested for making
supposedly sex noises in her house loud enough for a kid to hear
them?
So what? So friggin' what?
The
Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish story was
crazy cool. The video of the growth of the human face in the
womb is a must see!
There is so much evidence for evolution that,
after learning more and more, it has just become boring for me
to listen to, or try to talk to, creationists.
Re:
Why Won't David Barton Submit To Peer Review?, I was
very disappointed in Jon
Stewart after watching his interview with Barton. I get that
the man is a practiced huckster and slippery as an eel. But it's
Stewart's job to reel his guests in, to do his homework, and to
point out to the guy when he tells a lie!
Go to
David Barton’s Pants Are On Fire… For Jesus for information
on how you can get a copy of Liars for Jesus free! Or you
can pay for it. I'm paying for mine, personally. But apparently
David Barton Fink is featured quite a bit in Chris Rodda's book.
04/21/2011
Well, I'm sorry to say that I couldn't read
The Watchtower or
Awake!
and write nasty things about them. Both issues are so incredibly
boring, I just don't have the patience.
The Watchtower is, I guess, the Easter edition:
"Jesus: Where he came from, how he lived, why he died." And of
course, it's all from the Bible, as if the Bible is a history
book.
And Awake! is about "Coping with the loss of a
loved one." It looks like it might have some good advice for
people in grief, but it's naturally so infused with the Bible
and God that I have no reason to read it.
So, I have nothing to tease the JW's about
today.
I took the empathy quotient quiz at
The science of empathy. I honestly thought I'd score as
too empathetic. Seriously! But as I was taking the quiz, I
realized that I'm pretty empathetic in many ways, but not so
much in others. It turns out I scored exactly what average women
score. So, I'm average. Ick.
I enjoyed
Understanding Republican atheists. It wasn't a hit
piece, like I thought it would be. Let me segue here: I'm sure
I've said this before, but I have a large number of "friends" on
Facebook who are there just because they're atheists. When I
started on Facebook, I initiated a lot of connections, but I
don't do it anymore. Apparently, there are many, many more
atheists than evangelicals want you to believe. I can't befriend
them all; but I will accept their acquaintance anytime they ask.
The reality is that most atheists are not only
social liberals, like I am, but also fiscal liberals...in that
they believe that a just society is one in which we are not
entitled to all that we earn, but must not only hand our money
over to government for infrastructure and protection, but also
for the "betterment" of society, i.e.: social programs.
I don't agree with their viewpoint. I'm a fiscal
conservative who feels that true freedom means that the
government stays out of not only my life and pocketbook, but
also does not dictate who I will and will not help.
This is okay. I can understand their view. But
so many of them can not understand mine. The vitriol with which
great swaths of people (Republicans, Tea Party members,
Libertarians, Objectivists, etc.) are berated is just over the
top. People with whom they disagree are labeled idiots, selfish,
greedy, hateful, bitches (Ayn Rand, particularly) etc.
And yet, they consider themselves models of
virtue. I don't get it. It reminds me of another story that I've
probably told before.
A woman who owned a few charter schools here in
Florida was angry with the teachers and school board members who
objected to charter schools, or something like that. And she
quipped (snottily): "And they say they care about the education
of children!"
Well, yes, they do care about the education of
children; they just differ with you on the best way to ensure that
education.
So, anyway, I got tired of being called names
and started deleting people from my friends list on Facebook. So
far, I've only booted three. Maybe it was all just those three
people pissing me off every day. (I had to scroll back up to see
what got me off on this tangent!)
Soooo, that's why I was hesitant to click on the
link to
Understanding Republican atheists.
But it turned out okay. The only quibble I have
with it is the assumption that because an atheist is voting
Republican, he is voting against his own self-interest. In
reality, we all vote in the best of our self-interests as is
possible considering how little we really know about the
candidates, the way the system "works," and the impossibility of
finding a candidate or party with which we agree one-hundred
percent.
04/19/2011
Best comment on
"Ten Commandments Judge" Roy Moore forming presidential
committee: "That's one hell of a clown car the GOP is
filling up! Can't wait to see them pop out!"
In
Moms challenging viewpoint discrimination, I side with the
Christian moms. If the school allows other organizations to send
out invitations to events, they can't turn down their religious
group's invite.
Lee Strobel put out
a response to
An (Atheist) Easter Message from Ricky Gervais.
I've tried to read it twice now and just can't do it. I read the
man's inane books; that's about all I can take of his stupidity.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are back. Well,
different ones. I asked them why they keep coming over and
sending different people. "Don't you guys share notes?" Yes, she
said. They do. But they're on a three-month rotation. And now
it's their turn, whoever they were.
I told them I was surprised they came back after
the argument I had with the last two people. And I told them
that Twyla gave me one of their Bibles and a "science" book a
long time ago and it didn't do me any good at all.
"Oh, Twyla," the lady said. "If she couldn't
convert you then..." I don't think she finished that sentence.
I know that the lady's son is named Anthony and
the young man's wife is Dianna (probably one n). But I don't
know their names. I told them I would happily take their
literature, but I'd just make fun of it on my website. So, lady
asked young man if it was okay to give it to me and he said yes.
I also asked if I could join their church and
then write and exposé on it.
I'm not sure lady understood fully because she went on to tell
me about a Jewish lady whose daughter joined their church. The
Jewish lady went to her second daughter and said, "go find out
what's going on with your sister and that church." And when the
second daughter also joined the church the Jewish lady went to
her third daughter and said, "go find out what's going on with
your sisters and that church." And when the third daughter
became a Witness, the lady said, "That's it! I'm going to have
to go find out what's going on myself." And now, wouldn't you
know it? That Jewish lady is a Jehovah's Witness.
They call that lying for Jehovah. I'm sure lady
didn't know she was lying. Someone else told her that story and
she just believed it. And yet, she had the audacity to stand
there and tell me that she understood where I'm coming from.
She's all about facts herself.
Sure you are lady.
Anyway, they're going to come back and bring me
a tape about the Bible and a book about "Creation!" I'm pretty
sure I already have the "fact" filled book. And I don't have any
means to play a tape. Why are they so crazy?
04/16/2011
The Jehovah's Witnesses
came to the door while I was away. They gave my husband an
invitation to a "memorial."
The invitation is really a little pamphlet. It
says, "Jesus 'takes away the SIN of the WORLD.' How does he do
so? Why is this necessary? How can you benefit?"
And we're invited to find out the answers to
those questions this Sunday, when the JW's get together to
commemorate--they're probably not allowed to celebrate
anything--the anniversary of Jesus' death, which just so happens
to fall on Sunday, April 17.
Imagine that! They know the anniversary of
Jesus' death!
I can already answer the questions without their
help:
1. How does he take away the sin of the world?
Well, assuming the whole story is even real, by magic. God's
magic. God set up the whole scenario. For some odd reason,
Jehovah really needed blood sacrifices back then. But not
anymore--since they murdered Jesus. That was, apparently, all
the blood he needed.
God is like an enormous, spiritual magician who
loves the smell of burnt offerings. But he's given them up
lately.
2. Why was it necessary? Well, because Jehovah
royally screwed up, that's why. He created awful people (what do
you expect when you start with dirt?)--he destroyed them once,
all except for a drunk guy and his family. And then, he thought,
"I think I really overreacted and I won't do that again."
And when the people were still awful (because, I
mean, come on, we're all descendants of a drunk) he had to
figure out something else. "I know," he thought. "I'll
impregnate some virgin and become my own son and have myself
sacrificed. That'll do it. I'll make it really gory...yeah..."
Do you think the JW's think Jesus is God, or
divine, or just a man? They must think he's at least God's son,
because it says right there in the Bible that God had that part
of himself that gets all the dirty work come down to earth and
diddle Mary.
But anyway, the answer really is that it was
necessary because Jehovah said so. And that's good enough for
me.
3. How can I benefit?
I can't.
If I believe this nonsense, I'm an idiot, and I
have to spend a very long eternity with more idiots and a god
who couldn't come up with not only a better creation, but a
better plan. No thanks.
And if I don't believe the nonsense, I'll
apparently burn in hell. Which, when you think about it, might
be better than the eternity with idiots.
Well, the JW's don't believe in hell. They've
told me so. So, really, I'm glad I don't believe it in the JW
sense. I can just die and be part of the natural order of
things.
So, thanks anyway, JW's. I'd rather not get
together with you. From all I've learned from your doorknockers,
you're nuts.
04/15/2011
On the news:
Nearly Half Of Mississippi Republicans Think Interracial
Marriage Should Be…Illegal?
It's so sad that this is unsurprising.
Atheist group head told LO
council they pray to a "child murderer"
I wonder how the Palm Bay city council would
react to that? I bet Isnardi would blow a gasket of indignation.
Could be fun.
Letter from close friend offers rare glimpse into President
Lincoln's 'theist' beliefs
Sounds a lot like a Deist to me.
Why are Christian movies so awful?
Duh. Because they're more about the message than
the story.
Is the French veil ban ‘unconstitutional’?
Duh.
04/14/2011
Related to my latest Examiner article
City of Palm Bay open to atheists, Wiccans, Satanists, etc. for
"invocations" below is a copy of the email I sent to Palm
Bay City Council.
"Dear Ms. Isnardi, especially, and
members of the city council of Palm Bay,
I apologize for my lateness in writing.
Had I known that you were waiting for four years for someone
to complain about holding sectarian prayers before meetings
of the city council, I would have spoken up earlier.
Having dealt with the city council and
Mayor Mazziotti years ago regarding the blatant support of,
and preference for, Christianity on the city's website, I
didn't think you were interested.
After that, I was unaware that the City
of Palm Bay cared at all for its non-Christian,
non-religious citizens, of which I have no doubt there are
quite a few more than one percent (as if we must have
a certain number before fair representation is granted).
The thing about prayer at government
meetings is this: you all talk about freedom and how open
you are. But when the Satanists (possibly one of the better
religions, Mr. Mazziotti) and the Wiccans and the atheists
come to give an "invocation" (which, by the way, need not
involve a "higher being"), how inclusive will you be then?
History shows the minority that you won't
be inclusive or "tolerant" (as if we need your "tolerance")
at all. Perhaps you recall the 2004 results in Tampa in
which three council members walked out rather than listen to
an atheist offer an invocation.
And you must remember the Titusville
Wicca incident.
I hope that one day we will have the
opportunity to find out how open the City of Palm Bay is to
its very large non-Judeo-Christian population. But it is a
fortunate truth that the people most inclined to stand up in
public and bloviate on religion under the guise of an
invocation are Christians.
Consider this a formal complaint
against sectarian prayers (prayers of any kind, really)
at city council meetings, Ms. Isnardi. I hope this email
wasn't too wacky for you.
signed
Recent articles:
City of Palm Bay open to atheists, Wiccans, Satanists, etc. for
"invocations"
Ad company rejects Jesus resurrection video in theaters
Donohue: Sex abuse in Catholic Churches not so bad, blames
homosexuals
Warlock puts curse on new film, "Your Highness"
04/10/2011
This is very interesting. It says
quite a bit in relation to my feelings
of not fitting in. I'd love to get a
look at my brain.
But what does it say about those
liberals of my acquaintance who are
insulting and vile toward conservatives?
04/08/2011
I'm still here.
My latest articles at Examiner:
Will Good Friday become a national holiday?
14th-century mindset reacts to Qur'an burning
Update: Bigfoot vacations in NC--where's a good photog when you
need one?
Liberty Council demands Christian group get access to public
school students
Conservatives warn their flocks about Gay Days at Disney
03/10/2011
I am reprinting my most recent
Rationalism Examiner article here, just in case it doesn't
pass muster at Examiner.
I wrote about the
Raelians and their new
billboard campaign in Las Vegas. In the article, I said that
their "scientists" (the Elohim of the Bible) "sounded very much
like gods," despite Raelians claims that they're atheists. And I
also said, "If an
overabundance of lunacy is a sign of the apocalypse, the end
is nigh." (link and all)
I received an email from Examiner a few days
later, telling me that the Raelians had complained and that I
must edit my article to address those complaints or it would be
permanently unpublished.
The email notes the Raelians complaint as
follows:
"The article states
we the Raelians consider the Elohim to be gods (the complaint
states this is false). Secondly the article refers to lunacy
when referring to Raelians, which is opinion."
Well, I'm afraid their
complaint was false. I never said they consider the Elohim to be
gods. I only said the Elohim, as they themselves described them
on their website, which I quoted, "sounded very much like gods."
But yes, I did very much
refer to lunacy while discussing the Raelians. But, my article
was commentary and that statement was obviously opinion.
But need it have been?
Must a sane and rational person make it clear when calling the
belief that technologically advanced beings created all life on
earth and then left and will return one day--when we're ready to
greet them with gratefulness and love; but we're not ready yet
to understand them; only one man can understand them; that's the
man they were somehow able to make understand; his name is Rael,
and he wants you to follow him so the Raelians can return in
their "extra-terrestrial" spaceships--must I make it clear that
it is only my opinion that such nonsense is sheer lunacy?
No. Because that is sheer
lunacy. It's a fact. Lunacy. Loco. Crazy.
So, anyway. Here's the
article as I was willing to edit it. If I'm asked to edit
further, I think I'll keep my spine and let it be
unpublished.
Raelians join the battle of billboards
March 6, 2011
This article has been edited after a complaint by the
Raelians. Edits are highlighted in bold type.
On a billboard towering over I-15 in Las Vegas, the Raelian
Movement has launched a visible campaign against belief in gods
to counter the many billboards warning drivers against the fires
of hell. The billboard will remain for six months and directs
people to the Realian website.
The Raelians have dared to say what most atheist groups across
America have only hinted at: God is a myth.
Raelians consider themselves atheists because, they claim, they
don't believe in gods. But they are not rationalists, by any
means. Raelians believe that ancient scientists, the Elohim
mentioned in the Bible, created humans and all life on Earth,
and will one day return.
While their "scientists" at one time sounded very much like
gods, not anymore. Now their "scientists" are merely
technologically advanced human-like creators who will arrive in
extra-terrestrial spaceships.
When the original version of this article was written, on their
website, the "creators" were compared to an "omnipotent, yet
unseen force." This phrase was quoted directly from the FAQ
section under the question "Why do they not just show themselves
to everyone so we have proof to support Rael's claims?" It
originally read as follows:
"Take a minute to imagine this scenario...The omnipotent, yet
unseen force that claims responsibility for our existence
suddenly appears on Earth or in its skies for all to witness.
Imagine this arrival taking place on an extra-terrestrial
'spaceship.'"
Here is a link to the cached page.
That description of the "creators" as an "omnipotent, yet unseen
force" arriving on our planet has since been removed from the
Raelian website. It now reads like this:
"Take a minute to imagine this scenario...The creators that
claim responsibility for our existence suddenly appear on Earth
or in its skies for all to witness. Imagine this arrival taking
place on an extra-terrestrial 'spaceship.'"
So, I guess the Raelians owe your Rationalism Examiner a big
thank you for pointing out the inconsistency of their thinking
processes. If she had misquoted, or simply fabricated, the views
of the Raelians, she'd apologize. But as she did not, she will
not.
These Elohim are waiting until we are able to "understand" them
before they show up. And yet, somehow, they were able to make
one man, Rael, understand through several meetings in France, of
all places. His mission: spread the good news, the aliens are
coming.
Rael's method of spreading the word is simple: get followers to
give him money so he can put up a billboard in Las Vegas
advertising the Elohim.
The difference between the Elohim and the gods of other
religions is that the Elohim don't want us to worship them. They
want us to love them. They want us to be "conscious and grateful
human beings" when they arrive. And Rael's billboard is all part
of that consciousness raising.
If an overabundance of WHAT IS IN THIS RATIONALIST'S
VIEWPOINT lunacy is a sign of the apocalypse, the end is
nigh.
03/10/2011
My latest articles for Examiner:
Orlando Atheism Examiner:
Church billboard: Scumbags Welcome!
Miami's Winter Party Festival asks: was Jesus gay?
Atheist arrested for protesting prayer at school board meeting
Orlando couple debuts Christian film this weekend
Polk County School Board adds disclaimer to prayer
Project (apocalypse) Caravan arrives in Central Florida next
week
National Rationalism Examiner:
Pope exonerates Jews--now who will Christians thank?
Atheists angry at God? Not likely
"Actual" warlock aims to silence Charlie Sheen in witchy ritual
Billy Ray Cyrus equates atheism with darkness, Satan
That wacky world of the paranormal
World Net Daily speaks out against Christian intimidation
through prayer
Giles County School Board to remove Ten Commandments from
schools
Conservative group criticizes Texas' social studies curriculum
standards
Irony run amok: Herman Cain, Cardinal George, and The Protect
Life Act
And you thought I wasn't doing much.
02/13/2011
Celebrate Darwin Day by keeping the focus narrow
Central Florida celebrates Darwin Day
Secular Coalition challenges House Resolution affirming "In God
We Trust"
Tax churches? Suddenly the ADF claims separation of church and
state
01/30/2011
I just finished up the latest
Space Coast Writers Guild conference and am pumped and
energized for a new year of writing. Fiction writing.
Have you ever been reading your Google alerts on
atheism and religion and thought, "This is getting old?" No? You
don't get Google alerts on atheism and religion?
Well, maybe that's my whole problem. I'm
saturated. I don't even feel like reading my
Girlfriends in God
emails anymore. And my
LifeSiteNews emails are always abortion this and abortion
that. I'm tired.
The culture wars have lost my interest! They
better step up their game or I'm outta here. (heh heh...you know
it's just a phase. I always get pulled back in. Stinkin' culture
wars.)
01/20/2011
Today, I received an invitation to sign my children up for
Focus on the Family's magazines for children so that I could
build their faith. Because, after all, "their moral and
spiritual values will be largely set by age 13," which means
that I "have just a few years to help them discover the truth of
the Gospel."
Translated: If you don't teach your kids to
believe this fairy tale while their brains are still growing,
their chances of believing it later in life are slim.
I put it all in their post-paid envelope and
mailed it right back to them.
01/01/2011
Welcome 2011! And welcome to the 2011 Atheist
View blog. I can't wait to see what happens this year.
My experiment tracking the war on the holidays
was very interesting. While I wasn't able to update the page as
often as I would have liked, just paying attention to
commercials and ads made me realize that the vast majority of
businesses had inclusive "holiday" themed advertising. Very few
mentioned Christmas, and most of the ones that did, also said
holidays and used other inclusive terms.
So, for me, the experiment was a success! I've
taken the page down already and I won't likely do it again next
year, as I see no point. Retailers are still tolerant and
inclusive.
