So after getting her ass soundly beat by Raphael Warnock, Georgia’s Mrs. Moneybags Kelly Loeffler went into the banking business.
With a fun twist! It was a Christian bank.
I regret to inform you that this endeavor was a failure. She couldn’t find the funding to keep it afloat.
It even had a great name, if you’re an idiot: GloriFi.
Loeffler’s plan was to have an “anti-woke” bank (whatever that fucking means anymore) that held values near and dear to her (which is highly unlikely, Loeffler is just looking for suckers to get richer off of)-“pro-America values such as capitalism, family, law enforcement and the freedom to ‘celebrate your love of God and country.”
That doesn’t sound authoritarian at all, but I suppose no harm can be done getting your fascism on while you are filling out a deposit slip.
Whether she believes in it or not is immaterial-that there are many people who believe in and are clamoring for these so-called “American values” is worrisome enough. But I guess perhaps not too worrisome, seeing as how a grifter like Loeffler couldn’t gather enough rubes to open a zero interest checking account in her bank.
We here at the seminary have enjoyed kicking Ken Ham and his ridiculous ideas about science around. Today, I came across a twelve year old post from his organization of dipshits, Answers In Genesis. Poke around, they’re hilarious if you have a smattering of understanding evolution and the scientific method.
The post is titled, “Do Creationists Reject Science?” The answer, of course, is yes. They don’t expect their ignorant readers to know any better, though.
Let’s take this baby paragraph by paragraph. I may ignore one or two if they bore me.
“Anyone familiar with the creation/evolution debate should know that anti-creationists love to lob the accusation that creationists are “anti-science” or that they “reject science.” Evolutionists frequently label creationists “flat-earthers” and even go as far as suggesting that consistent creationists should deny the law of gravity!”
There is no such thing as an “evolutionist”. It is a scientific theory that is 100% accepted by scientists who study the natural world. The dichotomy is clear: you either believe the bullshit in the Bible, or you believe in what science has proven to be true, which makes you a scientist. Our early writers of the creation hadn’t a clue about what was above or below them. It’s really not much of a stretch between them and flat-earthers of today.
Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of biblical creationists and Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).
What the fuck is a Darwinist? Again, this is ridiculous terminology, science isn’t arguing his theories anymore. These idiots can’t even get the idea of a hypothesis correct. You begin not with something unprovable- why the fuck would you bother doing an experiment if your conclusion would never waver from the hypothesis? You begin with something falsifiable-something that is subject to disproof, but could, through the rest of the steps in the scientific method, be shown to be true, or come to a conclusion that requires more hypotheses. That is how it is done. This has nothing to do with faith. If we are simply talking about cosmology and physics, then we must work backwards through the evidence to get the clearest possible picture of what is happening in the universe and what has happened. We’ve gotten so good that we know what happened a ten thousandth of a second before the creation of the universe. And we’re not guessing at that point-we’re observing and using theories of energy and matter distribution that prove to be correct every time. Some of us are answering the question of how what seems like nothing became something. We’re doing exciting work, exciting thinking-not this boring-ass Biblical shit whose writers were consumed by superstition 2000 years ago.
You can’t ask a question, fail to get your answer, and just go “God must have done it. It says so right here in this Bible”. It’s a particular Christian prejudice they will never unlearn. God exists because the Bible says so, and the bible is the word of God.
Holy fucking circular logic.
But they do it anyway:
For Bible-believing Christians, God’s Word is our starting point: our presupposed foundation through which we interpret and balance fallen man’s ideas, including those derived scientifically. Although some may consider this a foolish faith, everyone has such faith in something. But which is foolish: faith in the unmovable Word of the omniscient creator God or faith in man’s fallible, changing ideas?
A-ha. You motherfuckers ARE anti-science, because our fallible changing ideas are what help us move on to more advanced experiments. When we developed things like lenses, the whole world was new. Nothing was as it seemed, small or large. You couldn’t ignore the previous fallibility if you tried. It’s the nature of science to keep questioning and looking, unless you are up against something like evolution, which has been impossible to disprove. Evidence piles up for it constantly, through the fossil record, through direct observation of organisms, and our ability to look at the genomes of any creature we wish. That is why it has special status as a theory, like relativity, like gravity. It remains the same no matter how many whacks you take at it (this is not totally true for some of these but for simplicity’s sake let’s leave it alone).
Also causing confusion is the simple distinction some try to make between “faith” and “science.” Answers in Genesis believes this dichotomy is in error, because some form of faith (in a religion) is required to believe in creation or evolution. Both creation and evolution make claims about an unrepeatable past that was not observed by humans. Thus both creation and evolution fall under the category of historical science.
The old “you weren’t there, so how could you know” argument. Well, that pretty much kills both science and religion, doesn’t it? Only belief in a magic book can get you out of this conundrum. I’ve already addressed the fact that there’s plenty of the observable past inside and outside our bodies.
This author goes on to extol the work of Gregor Mendel, a monk who taught us a lot about breeding and genetics by studying butterflies; and to disparage the work of Darwin, who merely made up a “story” about what he “thought” might be true. Mere “philosophizing”. In the author’s mind, these are different things, and one is of no use. But we do what Darwin did all the damn time in science; we see something interesting, and begin formulating hypotheses and creating ideas. And like it or not, Darwin has been right on the money every time. Indeed, we are all related, from the protozoan to the human. This is a process that has taken billions of years to occur. Religious weirdos always think that evolution must always mean a jump to another rung on the species ladder. No. Things evolve all the time. Every time something reproduces, an evolution can occur. Could be a negative one. There are so many factors that can contribute to an evolutionary change-even mere chance and error. It takes time we often can’t comprehend for life to order itself in a radically different macroevolutionary manner. The similarities between all creatures, though are simply impossible to ignore. But we have to be “special” in the religious mind, so people like Ken Ham won’t really engage Darwin’s actual theories, merely present cartoon versions of it. It’s easier to demolish a strawman than have an actual argument.
They end thusly:
We believe that the evidence, when speaking for itself, attests to the faith required to assemble a viewpoint on origins. When students have access to both sides of the argument, we have no doubt they will see that evolution, like creation, is a position supportable only through faith. When they see that many of the “evidences” for evolution are simply suppositions, they will understand that only God can give an eye-witness account. And, as we know from science, first-hand experience is much more reliable than just-so stories.
Do these people see the things they write? Is there anything more story-like than the creation myth? Talking snakes? Whole people made from ribs? Magic apples? Punishment by a deity just for knowing stuff? Light being created before the sun? The moon as a light source? Flaming swords and angels? And that’s just the first three idiotic chapters of the Bible. But somehow that’s more convincing than what science, always wondering, has shown us how things really are. And it will continue to find itself incorrect and improve upon itself and that is OK.
Uncertainty is what the religious mind cannot handle. We who are done with silly superstitions are fine with the unknown. You can’t know what you can’t know. So it goes.
There is such a thing.
In the age of Trump, sometimes it feels like everything is hopelessly fucked and there is no way to change it. Right-wing radicals are trying to lay waste to everything good.
But we’re also dropping a lot of albatrosses lately.
Bill O’ Reilly finally got too expensive for Fox. Alex Jones’ lawyer outed him as an actor. Jason Chaffetz couldn’t stand the heat in the kitchen. Those are big right-wing fish that just got netted; a propagandist, a conspiracy theorist, and a gatekeeper.
After months of smoke, we’ve found the traces of a conflagration. It’s only a matter of time before Trump and his minions get caught with empty cans of gasoline and matches.
But I bring good news from my neighbor in the Deep South.
Historically, Alabama has been a terrible place. It’s nicknamed the “Heart Of Dixie”, which translated from the Southern tongue means “Home To A Lot Of Racists”. I have been to Alabama once. It is as hot as the planet Mercury in the summertime, and I would rather be dropped there than visit Alabama again because Mercury doesn’t have mosquitoes.
George Corley Wallace Jr. was the face of Alabama and segregation in the sixties. Morris Jackson “Mo” Brooks Jr. is a representative from Alabama. Mo’s worried that there’s a war on white people. Jefferson Beauregard “Jeff” Sessions III also hails from there. Jeff is our attorney general, and is currently not sure that Hawaii is a state.
But I have good news. Another big fish from Alabammy has been speared.
We got Judge Roy Moore. After a long suspension, he’s been kicked off the fucking bench for good. Happy day!
For those of you who don’t follow these things like I do because you enjoy your sanity, Roy is best known for being an insufferable Christian bigot who could not get the concept of separation of church and state through his thick skull, nor could he comprehend the hierarchical structure of the United States court system as laid down by the Constitution.
Good news is often hard to find here at the seminary, because we are in a world of shit where the president seeks the counsel of Kid Rock. But if Alabama can work up the will to rid itself of unethical fleabag judges, there’s hope for all fifty.
Far be it from me to delve into the technicalities of a particular piece of jurisprudence.
But as a lay person, I feel I can demur against the judicial reasoning that one part of the first amendment runs roughshod over another.
Antonin Scalia Neil Gorsuch seems to believe that the free exercise clause is of far more import than the establishment clause.
It should be common knowledge by now that the impetus behind the establishment clause was that the State stayed out of the religion business, favoring and endorsing none. Fifteen years after the constitution was authored, President Thomas Jefferson made it clear to the Danbury Baptists that while he respected religious liberty, no special consideration was to be granted to a particular faith as far as the United States government was concerned. That brief 1802 missive heralded the idea of church and state separation. And for the most part, the secularization of our government has prevailed, notwithstanding things like the changes to the pledge of allegiance, annoying non-inclusive invocations before legislative sessions and the god bullshit on our money because of our allergies to any form of economic distribution besides capitalism.
Well, the SCOTUS is about to make a turn for the worse, with Neil Gorsuch leading the way. A case is currently being debated that could expand the definition of “religious liberty” in the law’s eyes . It may now mean that government funding for religious institutions is acceptable because the first amendment guarantees free exercise of religion. Therefore, the withholding of government funds (tax revenue that the church does not contribute to, mind you) because of adherence to the concept of refusal to establish amounts to discrimination against them. The plaintiffs further cite the fourteenth amendment, which as you all know mandates equal treatment under the law. If a public school wants to improve one of their playgrounds with government grant money, they reason, then it’s only fair that a religious institution should be able to have access to those funds as well.
This is very tricky legal jiu-jitsu, blowing off the establishment clause entirely to accommodate believers. It pits the constitution against itself. If this decision slides rightward, you’re going to start paying for improvements to churches.
It starts with something innocuous like surfacing playgrounds. God only knows how far this can go, because the ineluctable tendency in Christian circles is to push, push and push the envelope.
Todd Starnes is the undisputed king of conservative twerps. Some of you may already know who he is. He’s wound up on my radar several times for being a smug, disingenuous Christian bigot. In other words, he’s loved by Fox consumers. This is the creature I’m referring to:
(Todd Starnes at Halloween, in brave patriot costume.)
That doughy little gopher has always got something snarky to say when Christians don’t get their way. He can’t cut it as a reporter, so Fox is a great place for him since everyone is a commentator there.
What’s Todd being a cunt about now? This, from Pennsylvania:
The Ten Commandments monument will be removed from Valley Junior-Senior High School, after district officials reached a settlement in a lawsuit claiming the district violated the constitutionally required separation of church and state.
Before I begin whupping on Todd, let me just explain the atheist position on these damn monuments. I believe that somewhere in the penumbral intersections of the Bill Of Rights is the right to be left alone. That’s all atheists are really interested in-to live live the way we please(provided we do no harm) with a free conscience. Atheists are NOT, I repeat, not, interested in making converts. It’s a personal decision everyone must make after looking at the evidence that we have about the nature of being. We give less than a fuck what conclusion you come to.
Until you decide to drop a giant stone replica of your conclusions in a public place like a school, without considering how other faiths and creeds are going to feel about it. Then we have a problem. You Christians think you own everything, and that’s why you do this-it’s a show of force, a show of your potency in the face of what you consider evil, which is the rest of us. There’s no other reason for it. It’s not good law or sage wisdom to someone who has another god besides Jehovah, so let’s dispense with that bullshit reason for its usefulness or necessity.
I would never, ever do this to you. Sure, I’ve had the occasional beef with religion and I think believers are all one fry short of a Happy Meal in some way, but I ain’t into constructing monuments to my own brilliance since I have obviously got it all figured out…like you do.
Am I being clear here? Another thing-you really don’t want the Satanists getting into this. Because they will put a monument up if you do and you will really hate it. So, cut your losses like this school did, and keep your Bible tucked under your arm and not pissing me or people who have different faiths off with oversized reproductions of it, as if to signal you will forget it if you don’t have in giant engraved form. It’s more like you don’t want the rest of of us to forget who runs this damn culture.
To this I reply: fuck you too. And I will wield the Constitution and break your middle finger if I can.
So let’s catch a whiff of Todd’s always wrong, halfwit comments about it, shall we?
A Pennsylvania school district capitulated to the demands of a militant atheist who filed a federal lawsuit demanding the district remove a Ten Commandments monument erected on a public high school campus.
She sued. What makes that militant? Todd, as a fellow writer, I recommend trying to change up your descriptive ‘smithing so you don’t use the same word twice in a sentence. We all do it in our first drafts sometimes. You should avail yourself of an editor, because you can. Unless your goal was to emphasize how hard the militant demander demanded, then carry on, I suppose.
New Kensington-Arnold School District agreed to remove the massive monument within 30 days – ending a lawsuit filed in 2012 by self-avowed atheist Marie Schaub.
Unlike other atheists who have other people avow that they don’t believe. I get the feeling that Todd is trying to belittle atheists in some faggoty little passive-aggressive way, like he’s saying our thinking doesn’t count or something. This is probably much akin to Donald Trump and his “so-called” judges remark-if he doesn’t like or respect what they’re saying, then they’re somehow not real or authentic.
Schaub claimed the 6-foot stone monument erected outside Valley High School was a religious symbol and therefore was a violating of the U.S. Constitution.
Schaub also claimed the monument was offensive to her and her daughter. I can only imagine which commandment she found to be most offensive. Maybe it was the one about graven images.
Ho, ho, ho! I’m dyin’ ova’ heah!
No, it’s probably the one that asserts that I have a god, or that there is one that invalidates all others. Would you like me to be a dick and do that to you, Todd?
He’s got something to say about the people who brought the suit:
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a group of perpetually offended atheists, agnostics and self-professed free-thinkers based in Wisconsin. They intentionally bully and intimidate small towns and communities in their quest to eradicate Christianity from the public marketplace.
They are truly an unpleasant bunch of people, folks.
We’ve done a really good job at demonizing people who are offended by things. Our national phobia about being politically correct has caused this. White Christian Americans have gotten away with being bigoted dicks for so long that they are shocked, just shocked that someone is telling them to watch their damn tongue. Offense is taken when one is insulted. There is nothing wrong with being offended.
I don’t know why I have to explain this to Todd and his ilk. They get the vapors every time Starbucks’ holiday cup isn’t Christ-themed enough.
I’d rather be unpleasant than be these people any day of the week, by the way.
Schools Superintendent John Pallone told the local newspaper they agreed to settle the lawsuit “in order to take the high road.”
“We compromised and agreed to remove the monument,” he said.
That’s hardly a compromise. It’s more like appeasement.
Bullshit. Pallone either knew he was going to lose the case or was running out of money and goodwill to keep the monument up, so he characterized his decision to settle as a “compromise”. One immediately has to wonder what the school got in return for settling, because as far as I can tell, all they gained were two used carbon copies of checks that they had to write to plaintiff Marie Schaub and the FFRF. I agree with Starnes; it’s not a compromise. As it should be.
Requesting the respect that one deserves as a person with a free conscience is not tantamount to invading Czechoslovakia, which Todd airily alludes to. Let’s imagine it another way, Todd, using another World War II comparison, even though it is wholly inappropriate as all Nazi analogies are: I am living in 1942 Vichy France and you are an occupying army.
I’m the Free French. Vive Charles DeGaulle, motherfucker.
Then Todd finishes by castigating the school for settling.
And in doing so – the school district violated an eleventh commandment: Thou Shall Not Tucketh Tail and Run.
It’s so easy to criticize when it’s not you that has to do the fighting, innit, Todd? It’s typical Starnes, no one fights hard enough for the “right thing”. My god, what would happen to Christian morale if not for Todd’s sniggering prose? The mind reels at how things would be the same as they are.
The school was out of order. It’s fixed now. You’re out a stone memorial. Be fucking polite and no one has to go to court next time.
Culture, you’ve lost your right to use these words together.
We used to call this stuff “misinformation”, “tabloid journalism”, “hoaxes”, or just “lies”. Then 2016 happened, and the old-time press started calling internet bullshit “fake news”.
They didn’t realize it, but they birthed a monster, one that attacked its parents.
Perhaps you all remember a guy named Karl Rove. He is best known for helping the soon-to-be second biggest fucking idiot ever to claim the title President get elected, George W. Bush. One of his trade secrets was how to deflect charges of weakness in his candidate. In Rove’s political parlance, the dictum was:
“Accuse your opponent of what they are going to accuse you of.”
It’s a peculiar form of what psychologists have called projection. And it is hard to combat.
It wasn’t too long ago when the term “low-information voter” entered the lexicon, brought into use by liberals.
Rush Limbaugh, who is smarter than I give him credit for, understood the power of those words together and since conservatives usually don’t have anything original to add to a conversation, used the HELL out of it until you only heard it in right-wing circles to describe liberals.
That’s about where we are with the words “fake news”. Maybe it isn’t liberals’ fault that the concept boomeranged on them, but we started overusing it, often in internecine warfare between the newest wave of left-wing political bloggers who often employ sensationalism to steal clicks from what is now the internet establishment. I’m not gonna name names here, because I believe that calling out lefty blog sites, however misleading they are, is part of what allowed the concept of “fake news” to slip the leash and become a weapon for conservatives.
The situation right now? Well, you all know. The President-the-fuck-Elect thinks that the august and, to be sure, often fatally flawed CNN is “fake news”. Low poll numbers are now fake news.
Fake news is now defined as something you don’t want to hear about irrespective of its veracity.
Its misuse is spreading like typhoid. Bill Donohue, who is a truly repugnant religious fuckwad, wants to help spread this redefinition of “fake news”. A gay man was fired from teaching at a Catholic school because he posted about his marriage on Facebook. Nobody asked him, but Donohue, ever the moral scold, couldn’t help inserting himself into the issue. He refuses to admit that men can get married because…because…oh, screw it, I’ll let him tell you:
“I know that the Catholic Church opposes same-sex marriage,” says Billard, “but I don’t think my commitment to my husband [sic] has any bearing on my work in the classroom.” [Note: husbands are men and wives are women, so if Billard’s partner is his husband, that would make him his wife, and no one really believes that to be true. The Catholic League does not tolerate fake news.]
The phrase has been reduced to meaninglessness. And it’s only going to get worse-it will prove to be an impossible box to close now that the titular leader of the country thinks anything disagreeable written about him is fake. We’re going to lose this war, liberals, because they are better at projecting than we are. We need to be more careful in the future how we use shorthand like this. We need to deal in facts more than we need to glibly call out lies. There’s probably enough people listening to win the next election.
I could have been homeschooled, if it were legal in my childhood. My mother was very protective of me and if I didn’t feel comfortable with the public schooling I got, she made a stink until I was exempt from the curriculum. And so it was that I missed 6th grade sex education, and got out of reading “Rabbit, Run” in 9th. My little fragile eggshell mind couldn’t deal with the topic of sex and sensuality. I was afraid of it, and my mother allowed me to fear it, because her Christianity taught that it was fornication outside of marriage. When I became born again myself, I felt that too. And even when I left the church and faith behind, the problems I had with sex and the sex act remained.
I didn’t fuck my first girlfriend at all and we went out for 3 years.
I’m still having sexual issues today.
There may be no continuum that links these happenings. Yet, I feel that I was grossly unprepared to be a sexual being and do attribute some of my problems today with the ones I had.
Alright. That’s enough of the personal. I’m going to talk a little about the twin phenomena of homeschooling and Christianity.
Teaching is a tough job. That’s why it should be done by teachers. But zealous Christian parents are afraid that their children will learn about sex and evolution. So they are somehow allowed to teach at home without biology and other sciences being properly presented. Add copious doses of biblical teaching, and voila, you have an uncurious, neurotic youngster who’s ill-prepared to meet the world as it really exists. And I guess that is the point, since for Christians there is much concern about “the world” and how full of evil and temptation it is.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think you should be teaching if you refer to the Bible as the authority on everything. You are going to fuck your kid up and make them believe stupid things instead of know smart things, smart things that public schools could have introduced them to.
Moving right along, let’s talk about math. Math is critical to understanding how the universe works. I am very bad at math, and so I am limited in my understanding of the damn thing. There seems to be a sort of precision to the way things are ordered. Superclusters of galaxies are distributed evenly throughout the universe. Nothing travels faster than light, which always travels at the same speed. General relativity explains the relation of gravity, mass and energy. Why, if you look at the world around you, some things are arranged by a recurring fractal pattern.
Small wonder that St. Paul thought everything was arranged perfectly, and proved to him the existence of a being, a designer who made that perfection for us. But that vision breaks down even at observable levels-climate is changing because the earth is getting hotter, storms are more destructive than ever.Volcanoes and earthquakes and floods and droughts and wars kill millions. In the theoretical world, our math is beginning to hit barriers as physicists try to grapple with quantum mechanics and strange unseen matter that has to be there because the numbers say so. Nothing is chock full of something. It’s all up in the air-it is a bewildering time to be a scientist, and yet so exciting too. But the bottom line is, the more we know, the less we understand and that is the current cycle of science. That’s a feature, not a bug.
But if you want to be an ignoramus, just claim that Jesus created math. That is not only an affront to history, it’s based on the mistaken idea that it is perfect as only a creator could be. So anyway, this dildock who homeschools is postulating exactly that. He spins a parable:
Good morning class! It’s time for us to study mathematics.” The second-grade students all open their textbooks and pick up their pencils. “Let’s review first. Who can answer this question? What is 2 + 4?”
Seven-year-old Johnny raises his hand and offers an answer. “Six?”
“Very good, Johnny!” responds his government school teacher. “That’s correct.”
Fully expecting to go on to the next question, the teacher looks back at her teacher’s manual. Her thoughts are interrupted by a raised hand out of the corner of her eye. It is Johnny. He is such a precocious and inquisitive young man.
But his question catches her off guard.
“Why what, Johnny?”
“Why does 2+4 = 6? Does it always equal six?”
“Of course it does, Johnny. Why do you ask?”
“Well, can it ever be something different? Like, seven on Monday, and eleven on Christmas, and thirty-nine on my birthday?”
“No, of course not.”
At this point, the teacher, who was not homeschooled, would have chosen something countable in the room, and proceeded to put 4 in one pile and 2 in another. She could then combine the piles and count the total. Unless Johnny wants to argue the identity of numbers themselves, he would have shut the fuck up. But that’s not the way our homeschooler looked at this supposedly intractable problem of how to explain to Johnny how math works. He thinks the teacher is in a real bind:
With this question, the teacher has just found herself in a tight spot. Like it or not, she is facing a question that, by state law, she is not permitted to answer honestly. She quickly thinks through her list of options.
Finally, she decides to answer according to the metanarrative (the big overstory) of the government school system. What most teachers spread out over 10,800 hours of K–12 instruction, she decides to truncate into one short soliloquy.
Then he has this theoretical teacher recite the “government(???)” history of the universe to get Johnny to understand. And it’s all for no reason at all, the teacher says. Sorry, Johnny. It’s all accidental.
This is considered a sad way to go through life by Christians. They’re always existentially worried that their lives have no meaning and so they’ve invented a benevolent creator who loves them and their ultimate goal is to love him back. I’m not going to bore you with why that is pathetic and wrongheaded, because fellow atheists already know.
But anyway, our homeschooler pivots away from the why of math. He wants to know the who:
If you were to ask a teacher who is committed to the official narrative of government education, “Who is the author of mathematics?”, they would respond that it was evolution, or time plus matter plus chance.
Um, no, I don’t think they would say that at all. They would point you in the direction of the ancient Egyptians and Pythagoras, or tell you to Wikipedia it like I did and fuck off. Christians think they know the nonbeliever(or the government educated) mind so well. But they’re only projecting their anxieties on you. They need people to feel as bad as they do about things, otherwise the purposeless life they thought they escaped creeps back in again.
But anyway, 2+4=6 because….
Jesus is the Author of Math
And the evidence for this? Scripture!
[He] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:15–17)
That’s all. That mystical gobbledygook is all he needs for proof. QED. No need for pesky science because this holy book has it covered. The miniscule scraps of some letters to a church from a bedazzled monk are far more reliable than anything man has ever postulated. Fuck me running. Who’s crazier, the guy who discovered virtual particles or this homsechool Jesus freak who thinks the government is trying to indoctrinate your kids into…learning? To be honest, it’s getting harder to tell but just because it’s a wiggly world, it doesn’t mean I’m going to lose my mind over it.
I need music. Here.
What the actual fuck is all this about?
That’s what the French Riviera wants to know. So much so that they don’t want it on their beaches. That, friends, is what they are dubbing a “burkini”. This is a way for Muslim women to enjoy the beach while adhering to the Koranic dictate for women’s modesty .
Now when I read the Koran, I never ran into anything in it that demanded that woman cover herself the way that so many Muslim women do. It’s rather unspecific; the term is “modest”. I think we’ve all seen how far that’s been taken. And I really don’t think Muhammad intended for women to suffer discomfort or shame because of the weather. I’ve been to the big sandbox-it’s like being under a broiler. Then again, who knows because Muhammad was insane, believing he had talked to God.
The French beaches are wrong to discriminate against burkini wearers. As fucking stupid as it is to wear one, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. There’s no talking anyone out of their absurd religious beliefs. If a woman wants to roast in a full body wetsuit, let ’em have at it. Forbidding them from public space is only going to make their communities more isolated. You’re not teaching them anything-perhaps you think you are engineering liberation, but really you are fostering intolerance and discrimination. Leave them alone. It’s probably tough enough as it is to be a Muslim woman living in a doctrinaire household, where your husband can slap you around with God’s blessing.
We are cursed with the scourge of religion everywhere we look in this world. Yet in America, we are entreatied by our highest laws to respect it. As a nonbeliever here, I have to walk a fine line, wishing for its dissolution while acknowledging its importance to people. The French, who are more secular than we are, should be more practical about assimilating its Muslim community. It goes against all my fibers to rule in favor of respecting strict Islamic women’s dress codes, but it can’t be stopped just by covering women even more.
Ken Ham, the bible brandishing, excitable, man-sized rodent is twittering nervously about shit he doesn’t understand again. Much like Donald Trump, he can’t stand to be alone with his thoughts for long because they make him sad-so he takes to the digital dump and blurts out his righteous, albeit defensive, ruminations.
I get it, Ken. Your non-seaworthy conceit is a flop. I suppose if I wasted 18 million dollars of Kentucky tax money I’d be a little on edge myself. I’d have taken to drinking or worse by now. But not you, Ken. You’re getting out in front of this and preaching the truth! How can I not be convicted when you tweet things like
Evolution is a supposed process involving death, death & more death–death is a necessary part–death for everyone–it’s a religion of death
Wowsers, Ken. I never thought of it that way. I bet no one has-who’d want to? But let me focus you a bit. You’ve got evolution confused with life itself. Evolution is a process of change, not death. Life, necessarily, involves death death death and so forth. It’s rather self evident. Don’t be afraid! That’s not religion. It’s real. What do we do with death? We punch it in its stupid death face. We say what Nietzsche said:“Was that life? Well then, once more!”Now, what else have you got for us?
Atheism is a blind faith that doesn’t explain the evidence and is not confirmed by observational science-it’s the religion of naturalism
Scattering like buckshot tonight, eh, Ken? No problem. I want to call your pronouncements strawmen but let’s keep it real simple since you do. Look, brother, I love you, but crawl up your own ass and die with this “atheism is a faith” garbage. I. Don’t. Have. Any. Belief. In. God. Period. I pretty much lack the faith gene-lord knows I tried to believe for a decade or so. Faith and belief require activity, Ken, a type of activity which I do not pursue. As for the evidence, I’ve seen what passes for evidence from you-you’ve raised scripture-twisting to an art, pulling out bullshit from between every holy word.
Ken, you’ve got me stymied on whether or not I am a “naturalist”. Good thing I am here on a blog where I can take a minute to prepare myself for an accusation. I think I may have read a book or two of its genre. Google:
a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
Guilty. That’s all I have to go on; that’s about all I know so far. But it begs the question: so fucking what? Once again, am I to be convicted because of my ignorance? Not by you or your kind. Never. People who are certain scare me.
But by now we should all be bedazzled by your logic, and therefore you deliver your coup de grace:
Christianity is a faith that explains the evidence and is confirmed by observational science–it’s the true faith.
And it is here that we find the source of Ken’s loneliness, because there aren’t even very many believers who think that is true. Most Christians are very comfy with compartmentalizing faith and science. Rare is the bird who thinks that bastardized cut and paste book contains all the secrets of the universe. I’ve read it a few times. It really isn’t that good as books go. Shit, Dianetics makes more sense than Christianity if I’m completely honest.
I gotta go, Ken. My religious, naturalistic, death loving life calls. Fuck yourself hard, would you?
Tamar Courtney and Morgan Strong have been together for six years and will be getting married this summer in Virginia. They wanted a friend to officiate the ceremony but after facing some difficulties in obtaining his license, they figured they would just go to the county courthouse and take care of the legal paperwork.
They had some issues obtaining a public servant in their home county, so they jumped over to another. They were rebuffed:
Morgan: … am I speaking with Bud Roth?
Roth: This is he.
Morgan: How you doing. I just received a phone call. I guess my fiancee had called up looking to be wed in Franklin County?
Roth: Okay, yeah.
Morgan: Okay… and why was she declined the service?
Roth: Because she’s Agnostic and you’re an atheist. I will not marry you. You don’t believe in God.
Morgan: I mean… but… so that’s your judgment on it, correct?
Roth: That’s my decision. I’m not judging you. I just don’t marry anyone who does not believe in God [or] believes that there is a God someplace.
This is a miscarriage of social justice and I’m utterly repulsed by this treatment of non-believers. I love how in the end, the dickheaded public servant says “I’m not judging you.”
No. You don’t get to say “I’m not judging”, and then judge the couple unworthy of simple civil rights. Typical. Your whole fucking faith is based on circular logic, you sons of bitches. I can’t wait for the lawsuits to fly.