A pseudo-religion self-parodies

Okay, Tizona Group beat me to this item. But that doesn't mean I can't add my $0.02.

Hours after a massive earthquake rattled Japan, environmental advocates connected the natural disaster to global warming. The president of the European Economic and Social Committee, Staffan Nilsson, issued a statement calling for solidarity in tackling the global warming problem.

“Some islands affected by climate change have been hit,” said Nilsson. “Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity — not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming?”

“Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do,” he added.

Are you effing kidding me? Seriously? Do these imbeciles understand that earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics, NOT by the weather? Attributing an earthquake to climate makes about as much sense as attributing an asteroid collision with Earth to climate.

As if there was ever any doubt, this is the final proof that Global Warming has absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with religion. Just as a believer in the Almighty sees God in all things, so an AGW believer sees warming in everything. Drought = warming. Flooding = warming. Severe weather = warming. Balmy weather = warming. Heat = warming. Cold = warming.

These AGW fetishists are so caught up in their superstition that no amount of evidence can convince them that there are things that happen whose occurrence has absolutely nothing to do with climate.

I recommend checking out the Tizona post. It's got some good stuff in it. The best part for me was this quote.

Global warming alarmists are to natural disasters what the Westboro Baptist Church is to military funerals.

You got THAT right.

More anti-atheist blowback

Buzzfeed, a site where pretty much anything and everything and everyone is mocked (particularly Christians and Tea Party types) really doesn't play favorites.  Or.......perhaps even people in the "hipster, agnostic, anti-Tea Party" crowd are sick to death of militant atheists.  Either way, this was the result.

Top 10 Reasons Atheists Suck

1. Atheists really enjoy being smarter and more rational than everyone else. Have you noticed that about Atheists? I have.

2. Atheists tend to be haters who don't believe in anything. You get excited about something cool and they are always all skeptical, asking lots of critical questions, and basically kill the positive energy.

3. They love reading Reddit.com, which is a perfectly good site, but they get all smug about how Reddit is better than other sites. Like is there some rule that if you don't worship the real God, you have to worship Reddit instead?!? WTF?

4. Atheists love to mock hard working, religious Americans who love their kids, work hard, and go to church.

5. Atheists think they are rational and scientific but isn't it more rational and open minded to say that God *might* exist? Should real scientists keep an open mind?

6. Atheists are some of the biggest trolls on the Internet. They will probably start trolling me just for writing this post.

7. Have you ever known someone who would rather be right than loved? And eventually you are like, “dude, ok, ok, you are right” but you are also thinking “what an a-hole!” That a-hole is almost certainly an atheist.

8. Atheists are the kind of people who enjoy telling small children that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny are all fake. Thanks for ruining all the fun, atheist! I guess you think a 5 year old knowing “the truth” is more important than them having a happy childhood.

9. Atheists are selfish. Instead of praising God for good things that happen in their life, they just praise themselves. Like “wow, I really deserved that raise. Praise myself!”

10. They just suck. You don't even need a reason. It is obvious. Just accept it.

I have to add, so you know where I'm coming from, that most atheists are perfectly normal, likable people.  I have no problem with them.  I have no beef with them.  I'm live-and-let-live.  They're live-and-let live.  It's those militant Richard Dawkins wannabe assholes who fit the "type" described in this list.  You know, the people that Vox Day so loves to pillory.

The amazing thing about this list is not the list itself.  It's that it made Buzzfeed.  Things don't just end up on Buzzfeed.  They end up there because a sufficient contingent of "hipsters" think it merits the attention.

Being the consummate connoisseur of schadenfreude, I have to opine that the idea of militant atheists being subjected to increasing ridicule warms the cockles of my dark heart.

Now go say 10 "Hail Darwin"'s and contemplate the total purposelessness of your wretched existance.

Liberals and atheists are smarter than us (and other popular myths)

As if militant atheists aren't annoying enough.  Now there is a study that purports to prove that liberals and atheists are more intelligent than conservatives (I suppose that includes libertarians) and people of faith.  This is a sampling of the paper-thin "logic" employed in this "proof".

Before reviewing the specific findings related to atheism and intelligence we should note that Kanazawa takes it as settled that, “it is evolutionarily familiar and natural to believe in God, and evolutionarily novel not to be religious.” Kanazawa maintains this based on recent research in evolutionary psychology that suggests a hyperactive perception of intentionality in the brain that is adaptively paranoid about unknown causes and thus attributes quasi- or supernatural causation as an explanation.

I presuppose it, hence it is true. Tool.

The great divide in intelligence between the "smart" group and the "stupid" group:

[A]dult subjects who identify as “not at all religious” had a mean intelligence as adolescents of 103.09 while the “very religious” had a mean intelligence of 97.14.

Uh huh. Allowing for sampling errors and standard deviation, there's about a credit card's width between the two groups.  And given that the "scientist" who conducted this "study" had a preconception going in - that atheists are more "evolved" than the religious - who's to doubt his "findings"?  [/sarcasm]

As Vox Day ably demonstrated in his excellent book The Irrational Atheist, which I reviewed shortly after it came out, atheists are not only NOT smarter than believers, but also tend to overestimate their own intelligence.  It is not unusual for an atheist of slightly above-average intelligence (IQ in the 115-120 range) to consider themselves highly intelligent.

Not to rub anyone's nose in it, but this libertarian Christian with a Mensa-eligible IQ of over 140 (tested) isn't impressed nor swayed by this idiotic excuse for "science".

Atheists aren't smarter than believers.  They're just more annoying.

They're just not that smart

One of the traits of committed leftists is a sneering sense of their own superiority. They are so convinced that they and their ilk are the smartest people in the room - always! The atheists among them like to refer to themselves as "Brights", an obvious slam at believers, whom they would have you believe are a bunch of knuckle-draggers who aren't smart enough to have abandoned a belief in an "invisible friend in the sky".

Yet twice in the past two weeks, news anchors from Left-leaning Cable News ratings disaster CNN placed dead last at Celebrity Jeopardy. You can't make this stuff up.

CNN should consider banning its anchors from appearing on "Celebrity Jeopardy" after the humiliating defeats of Wolf Blitzer and Soledad O'Brien. Wolf was blitzed last month, coming in last with minus-$4,600, behind comic Andy Richter, a past winner who racked up $68,000 for charity. "Desperate Housewives" star Dana Delany came in second. This month, it was O'Brien's turn against NBA legend Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Michael McKean, of "Spinal Tap," "Laverne & Shirley" and "Saturday Night Live." McKean, a previous winner, ended with $24,800, followed by Abdul Jabbar with $8,800 and O'Brien with $6,200. A CNN insider defended the journalists: "They are reporters, not trivia experts. And the buzzer is complicated. It's not activated until Alex [Trebek] finishes the last syllable of the question. If you hit the button too soon, nothing happens."

Oooh...I wouldn't have gone there. "The buzzer is complicated"? Are you kidding? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out after about the first, maybe second time that you're early that you need to be more patient and time your button push better. And many of the questions on Jeopardy are NOT trivia; questions frequently address historical issues that I would prefer that the folks who read my news were aware of.

Okay, Vulture! We know what this is about -- you rock at Jeopardy. You know the answers to about 85% of the questions. You're just trying to show off -- to make yourself look superior to CNN anchors.

Not at all.

You see, according to the Caput a Palos, I'm not that bright. So...if I'm a bit on the dim side and can answer 85% of REGULAR Jeopardy questions (not the obviously dumbed-down questions they save up for the celebrities), you'd think that smug assclown Wolf Blitzer might at least, I don't know, finish in the black.

The truth is that Left-leaning people are little more than herd animals, following behind the closest thing to an Alpha dog that the Left is able to produce. They all say the same things. Worse, they all THINK the same things. And their knowledge of things outside of their insular little world is wanting.

Remember that the next time Mr. Blitzer anxiously reports that Sarah Palin has been identified as being "not too bright". And he will. One true thing you can always count on from the Left -- they have absolutely NO sense of irony.

The immorality of the AGW crowd

Gaia worshipers and Stateists of all stripes are trying to use mythical anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as a cudgel with which to flay the scourge of Mother Earth, that virus known as humankind. These followers of the official religion of the coming One-World Socialist Utopia are bound and determined to ensure that humans - particularly those in the wealthy West - are made to suffer for their sins against nature.

The penance of choice has been to levy onerous taxes on Western Nations in the form of carbon credits. Our suffering is manifested in the predicable results of this ridiculous and unnecessary drain on Western economies: jobs lost, and economic opportunity squandered.

This is a small price to pay compared to that suffered by the developing Third World. Policies employed (read: dictated) by Western "leaders" are causing real death and disaster, particularly in Africa.

Life in Africa is often nasty, impoverished and short. AIDS kills 2.2 million Africans every year according to WHO (World Health Organization) reports. Lung infections cause 1.4 million deaths, malaria 1 million more, intestinal diseases 700,000. Diseases that could be prevented with simple vaccines kill an additional 600,000 annually, while war, malnutrition and life in filthy slums send countless more parents and children to early graves.

And yet, day after day, Africans are told the biggest threat we face is – global warming.

[...]

However, the real problem isn’t questionable or fake science, hysterical claims and worthless computer models that predict global warming disasters. It’s that they’re being used to justify telling Africans that we shouldn’t build coal or natural gas electrical power plants. It’s the almost total absence of electricity keeping us from creating jobs and becoming modern societies. It’s that these policies KILL.

[...]

Not having electricity also means disease and death. It means millions die from lung infections, because they have to cook and heat with open fires; from intestinal diseases caused by spoiled food and unsafe drinking water; from malaria, TB, cholera, measles and other diseases that we could prevent or treat if we had proper medical facilities.

Hypothetical global warming a hundred years from now is worse than this?

There's more - much more - that I'd love to share from this extraordinarily well-written commentary. The only problem is that, short of quoting the entire article, I wouldn't know what to leave out.

Please read the entire article. It is a chapter-and-verse indictment of the immorality of the AGW crowd.

Wiener of the Week

And to think that this simple-minded mouth-breathing waste of oxygen was almost the Governor of Maryland! The title of her polemic says it all: Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does.

When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they'll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side. In fact, Obama's agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's.

Sooooooo. What you're saying is that, because many American Catholics have deviated from the faith as taught in your church's catechism, the Pope is less relevant. Which, in what passes for your mind, makes Obama, who agrees with your deviation from your church's beliefs, the truer Catholic leader.

xfloggingkylex, you're the Psych major...PLEASE make sense of this for me! After all, you've taken classes in Abnormal Psychology and I haven't.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, you dim-witted troll, you're the Wiener of the Week.

Wiener of the Week

This is one installment of WotW that you're gonna just love. I know I do. It seems that an attempt to smear Christians and supporters of third-party candidates has come back to bite the state of Missouri in the ass.

The Missouri Highway Patrol this week retracted a controversial report on militia activity and will change how such reports are reviewed before being distributed to law enforcement agencies.

The Highway Patrol also will open an investigation into the origin of the report, which linked conservative groups with domestic terrorism and named former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

---

[I]t suggested that domestic militias often subscribed to radical ideologies rooted in Christian views and opposition to immigration, abortion or federal taxes. The report also stated that it was "not uncommon" for militia members to support third-party political candidates.

Let's see. We have "radical ideologies rooted in Christian views" (whatever that means). We have a blanket painting of third-party supporters as militia members (and, as such, as right-wing extremists. What more could we ask for?

The state's Lt. Governor had more - much more.

Before Keathley’s memo was released Wednesday, Kinder criticized the report for suggesting that only issues championed by conservatives motivated domestic terrorists. The report "slanders" opponents of abortion and critics of illegal immigration, he said.

"Under the guidance of the present director, who apparently must think it is Nixon’s secret service, the Department of Public Safety has taken on the new and sinister role of political profiling," Kinder said.

Also troubling, Kinder said, the report makes no mention of Islamic terrorists or those who might subscribe to ideologies associated with liberals, such as environmental radicals.

I'd like to second that last thought. Google up ALF (Animal Liberation Front) or ELF (Environmental Liberation Front). These are bona fide terrorist groups - not a phantom menace like Christian supporters of third-parties!

What's extraordinary about this story is that it took a major s*** storm for Missouri to disavow the report! Their initial reaction was this:

[T]he information analysis center released a statement reaffirming its "regard for the Constitutions of the United States and Missouri" and expressing regret that "any citizens or groups were unintentionally offended by the content of the document."

Yeah! Don't get your panties in a ball! We're protected by the First Amendment, so you can kiss our collective asses!

They're not talking so tough now, are they? And you wonder why schadenfreude is such a major part of who I am...

So, Missouri: Congrats! You're the Wiener of the Week.

Vulture Droppings - Election Day

Vulture droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

It's finally here. Thank God! I couldn't take much more of this election BS. I've already voted today, tallying my vote for Ron Paul, thank you. If you haven't voted yet, please consider reading from these past links before you do.

• On voting
• Ron Paul, Superstar
• Black Democratic voters = Conservative Republican voters

Okay, now on to the last minute election-related tidbits that will be stale and unusable tomorrow.

---

First, there is a myth that I wish to squash, posthaste. That myth is that it is important for everyone to vote. I wish to register my contrarian answer to that myth.

Everyone should NOT vote. Why not? Because "everyone" includes people who aren't paying attention! Because "everyone" includes people who think it's important to vote for the candidate who promises the most "stuff" for them. Because "everyone" includes people who know more about Madonna than they do about Barack Obama. And because "everyone" includes people sucking on the government teat, draining our national vitality and sapping the resources of the middle class. If you don't know who the candidates are, don't vote. Please. If you don't know how the candidates stand on issues that are important to you (or you don't even have a clue what the issues are), don't vote. And if you're voting for a candidate based on the color of his skin or the "stuff" they've promised to give you, please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T VOTE!!!!!!

---

There's an email going around that purports to prove that BHO is the Antichrist. One of the "proofs" of this assertion is this.

According to The Book of Revelation:

The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything.

There's just one problem with that. IT ISN'T TRUE!!!

The Book of Revelation doesn't say jack about the age or ethnicity of the Antichrist (though some have come to the conclusion that he would be Roman or Italian). As a point of fact, Islam wasn't established until about 600 AD, so John the Revelator wouldn't really have a term for a Muslim nor any kind of context of who they are, now would he?

If you're going to malign a candidate, at least get your facts straight!

---

One final item. This is the text of an email from Pastor Richard Fredericks I received just today. It's wise council for all of us, regardless of how the election turns out.

Dear Family and Friends,

Tomorrow the election is over and the country has decided. May I make a few post-election observations, not about the candidates (who cares what I think), but about our processing of politics as Christians.

For the record, I really admire both McCain and Obama. To last through the gauntlet of a presidential campaign takes an exceptional person, and the strength under fire and tenacity of both candidates deeply impressed me.

John McCain is not only a true war-hero, he is a stamina super-hero. When most 72-year olds with a 401K only dream of their well-earned retirement, Senator McCain is energetic and proved he could shoulder the weight of the presidency. He ran a campaign schedule that would kill most young men—including clear, rousing speeches in SEVEN states on the final day: try that sometime. He is a model of making your whole life count for the things you care about.

Barack Obama brought an eloquence of communication to this race unseen since John Kennedy, and his position papers on race and religion (the two hot buttons of his candidacy) are, in my opinion, must reads for their thoughtfulness—especially if he emerges as the winner.

Finally, the fact that we had: the oldest presidential candidate ever, the first black (bi-racial) candidate ever and that two strong women (Senator Clinton and Governor Palin) played central roles in this election definitely marks a new era of maturity and openness in American politics.

Now three observations about us:

Once we decide for a candidate and against the other, based on their positions (a good thing) there is a tendency to impugn the motives and character of the candidate we did not chose. Fiery zeal and words like idiot, crazy and dangerous get applied to both. I would be willing to wager a year’s salary that if you spent a long weekend with either candidate (and with an open heart) you would leave with great respect—perhaps not for their positions—but for their character and sincerity.

Second, my prayer for the American church is that we always respect the political process but stop believing anything other than the church sharing Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord can transform America. Political leadership matters, especially in a crisis (as Lincoln and Roosevelt demonstrated). But throughout history, whenever Christians believe their political party will usher in God’s righteousness—without exception—things have gotten corrupt at best and deadly at worse. Our hope is God’s grace alone, shared by Christians who believe Jesus alone is the answer, not legislation. I think perhaps Christians bent on political salvation may be the new legalism.

Third, God’s Word calls us to be “completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.” Ephesians 4:2. There is no clause that says ‘except for politics.’ Christians should be marked by passion for beliefs coupled with an equal dose of civility because of genuine humility about our own sinfulness and lack of infinite perspective on what God is up to. NOW—let’s pray for our new president—whoever he is. Love Ya, R

Amen, Richard. Amen.

Wiener of the Week

I received an email this weekend that had me shaking my head. You can read the entire text of the email here, if you're so inclined. The gist of it can be derived from this excerpt.

Prayer can move mountains, why not Obama?

Being dismayed recently when a family member of mine said to me with great resignation that Obama will take the presidency. These words came from someone who in the past has been a great prayer warrior.

What is happening was my question??? Why are we Christians settling and not issuing a battle cry and falling to our knees and taking our country back?

Yeah, prayer will make McCommie our next president. *shudders*

Sorry, but I fell for this steaming pile back in 2000. I prayed mightily throughout the election process, particularly during the Florida debacle, and look what it got us: King George the Dim.

I'm sorry, but I've got better things to pray for than whether we get a socialist or a communist as our next president. I just pray that neither of them can cause as much ruin to this country as King George did (or, to go old school on you, as Jimmy Carter did).

So, you ask...why is THIS WotW material? Here's why.

George Bush is being buffeted because he has fought a holy war against the evils that attack us and we should not be surprised because a prophet is not honored in his own country. But we should not rest on our laurels and allow ourselves to be taken further off the path of Christianity and to have God removed from our presence in our schools, courts, government and businesses. Invite God into the fray. Ask that His power rest upon us and give us the victory. Ask him to raise up a mighty army to defend us and to protect our country as he did in days of old. Let us be victorious beginning NOW. The battle is His but we must call on Him without ceasing and unite our voices and hearts in prayer and fasting.

Are you kidding me? A holy war?!?!?!? The asshat in chief goes to war against the WRONG country (Saudi Arabia being the RIGHT country, that is, if you're serious about stopping the spread of radical Islam, Wahhabist SA being the chief exporter of said ideology). He uses the military to babysit a country that resents our presence for 4 years, getting 3,000+ young men killed and countless others maimed in the process. And you want us to pray for....what? More of the same?

Someone needs to take the original author of this email to the woodshed. This was NOT a just war. It was not even necessary! Saddam Hussein had as much to do with the cause of radical Islam as I have to do with the success of the 49ers.

For equating the cause of Team Elephant with the will of God, the email author is my Wiener of the Week.

Has the Big Warming worm turned?

Great Britain is a formerly great nation in great decline. With sub-replacement birth rates (like the rest of EUtopia), a declining financial standing in the world economy, and a bit of an "immigrant problem" (not, mind you, illegals as in the State; no, we're talking about "immigrants" who want to wreak Jihad on their Limey asses), Britain has certainly seen better days.

But at least someone THERE sees through the crap and propaganda of Big Warming.

The Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has angered green campaigners by describing their view on climate change as a "hysterical pseudo-religion".

In an article in the News Letter, Mr Wilson said he believed it occurred naturally and was not man-made.

"Resources should be used to adapt to the consequences of climate change, rather than King Canute-style vainly trying to stop it," said the minister.

Peter Doran of the Green Party said it was a "deeply irresponsible message".

Mr Wilson said he refused to "blindly accept" the need to make significant changes to the economy to stop climate change.

"The tactic used by the 'green gang' is to label anyone who dares disagree with their view of climate change as some kind of nutcase who denies scientific fact," he said.

Preach it, Brother Wilson!

No, Ardwulf, this isn't some "denier" quoted from some "right wing publication". This is the Environment Minister of a G-8 country quoted in a story by the left-leaning BBC.

My hope is that the dominoes are starting to fall in the direction of common sense. My hope is that the Big Warming crowd has overplayed their hand and is in the dire predicament of trying to sell their BS to a populous that is sick of their tactics and starting to wise up to the reality that....wait for it....there is no freaking warming!

When you've lost the Environment Minister of Great Britain, a guy whose job includes actions on behalf of your cause (religion?), you've really shot yourselves in the foot.

* The Vulture smiles an evil smile and begins to circle Big Warming *

Big Media Priorities

The news cycle spins again. Today it's the big financial panic, a most appropriate topic that touches the lives of all of us.

But there's still space on the ABC, CBS, and CNN news sites for more Palin bashing. If you want to see the absolute worst of journalistic malpractice, check out Jake Trapper's blog, Political Punch, at ABCNews.com. Good Lord, the man might as well have an "Obama/Biden '08" banner across the top of his blog. This assclown considers it major news that Sarah Palin has a tanning bed! What a tool!

Other pressing issues burning up the news include the California state budget situation, the aftermath of Hurricane Ike, tasers, baggy pants, and the usual celebrity voyeurism.

It is what it is.

But what it ISN'T is awake. For the past 6 weeks, a massacre of horrible scope and ferocity has been taking place in India. The only reason I know anything about it is because I received a newsletter from Good News India, an orphanage ministry my church supports. The newsletter can be viewed here.

Curious as to why I had missed news of a massacre of this scope and magnitude, where Christians are being slaughtered at the hands of extremist Hindi (who even knew there WAS such a thing as an extremist Hindu?), I did a Google search to check into which news outlets had reported on the massacre and when. Only one - one - news outlet had reported on the atrocity, WorldNetDaily.com. Yeah, Ardwulf, the "white supremacist-aligned, questionably-funded, hate-mongering" WorldNetDaily.

In the mean time, the "major" news outlets had plenty of time and space to report on Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, and oodles of time and space to report every piece of "damaging" minutia regarding Sarah Palin (Any word yet on Joe Biden's ties to MBNA? Just curious.), but not a second of time nor space to report on an atrocity fueled by religious hate. But it's just Christians being slaughtered in a faraway third-world shit hole, so who cares, right?

If it don't fit the script, it don't print.

And journalists wonder why they rank down with Congress, King George the Dim, used car salesmen, and ambulance chasers in the public's esteem.

Harry hits a homer

It seems that Harry over at What I think you should read has a pretty good grasp of the Official State-Sanctioned Religion.

The Progressive Movement that is marching across our Nation at this time is driven by Marxist and socialist ideology mixed in with the religion of Global Warming. GW is leveraged by the progressives to reach their goal. These “progressive” and “forward” thinkers like to whip on Christians and other religious Americans claiming that they are not as intellectually sound or enlightened. The progressives employ softer words than Karl Marx to bash religion as “the opiate of the masses” but generally share that view. This is sweet irony, for no religious fad I have ever seen or heard of has caught on like Global Warming. Not even Oprah’s religion is getting that kind of hysterical following.

Indeed Global Warming is a natural pantheistic movement that has as much hold on its followers as any Christian Church I know. Perhaps even more-so.

Harry then goes on to make a point-by-point comparison of Christian tradition and the equivalent tradition within the OSSR. I can't do it justice with excerpts. You gotta read it for yourself.

Things I would add to what Harry has written:

Dealing with unbelievers. The Christian version was the Catholic church's Inquisitions of the middle ages. The OSSR's version is to shout down competing voices, and ignore, marginalize, demonize, or destroy their opponents.

Cultivating belivers. In the Christian version, missionaries are designated to bring the Good News to every nation, tongue, and people. The OSSR's version is Big Media, which parrots the orthodoxy of its Priesthood (led by Al Goerbells) as incontrovertible fact.

Calling out prophets for hire

William Grigg from Pro Libertate has an uncanny knack for calling out people of power and influence. He's especially good at pegging phonies. In this article, he takes on the "palace prophets" of our age.

The object of sharing this rather emancipated paraphrase of I Kings 22 is to underscore the moral and practical futility of seeking wisdom from religious leaders who are on the state's payroll, or who covet the power that comes from proximity to the politically powerful.

I do not intend to interpolate my own views into the Scripture, but from what I know of human nature it seems likely that many of the payola prophets who took part in Ahab's “Faith-Based Initiative” probably believed that their compromises were necessary in order to advance some worthwhile objective or another. After all, working in partnership with the government is the key to getting things done, isn't it?

Here's a critically important principle: In any “public/private partnership,” the state is always the senior partner. When Christian leaders are on Caesar's payroll, they have to render to him things to which he is not entitled. And when Caesar's tactical priorities change, those religious leaders who thought they could co-opt the power of the state to do good will discover, to their dismay, that the state has co-opted them, leaving it stronger and more hostile toward the values those leaders supposedly served.

Chief among those who serve on Caesar's payroll, and the main target of Mr. Grigg's article, is faux-Evangelical "Doctor"* James Dobson.

"Doctor" Dobson has walked down the same unholy path as his predecessors, Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson. To say I have nothing but the highest contempt for those two asshats is to understate the loathing I have and have ALWAYS had for them. They were Christianity's worst enemies, the fifth-column undermining us from within with their trust in the arm of Government over the arm of God.

"Doctor" Dobson has now supplanted the dead Fallwell and doddering (and utterly sold-out) Robertson (remember: he endorsed Rudy f'ing Guiliani earlier this year). He stands alone as the "palace prophet" in the ignoble tradition of Zedekiah and the other 399 sell-outs of Ahab's court. His allegiance is no longer to the things of God. No, he wants to be on the side of power.

Earlier this year, the "Doctor" boldly proclaimed that he would not under ANY circumstance EVER vote for John McCommie. Yeah, sure. Now he's hedging and saying that he might "reconsider" and actually endorse McCommie since Obama is so antithetical to his beliefs. And what beliefs might THOSE be, "Doctor"? Your belief in remaining close to the levers of power?

By their fruits you shall know them. If "Doctor" Dobson really cared about the things of God, he would decry BOTH candidates and BOTH major political parties and work his ass off to throw Evangelical support behind either Dr. Ron Paul or Libertarian Bob Barr. But he'd never do that, because, given the libertarian beliefs of both of those good men, there wouldn't be any perks or goodies to be garnered from their presidency.

"Doctor" Dobson, you're a phony and a false prophet. Those of you who call yourselves Christians need to distance yourselves from this charlatan posthaste, or you'll sink with him when Caesar decides he's done with him.

* Bias alert. I have a default posture of negativity towards anyone who insists on being called "Doctor" who isn't a practicing clinician or professor. My pastor has a Doctorate: he insists on being called "Richard". My kinda guy!

Wiener of the Week

The WotW this week is a group of people that feels persecuted and hated. They're constantly whining about how the culture is being taken over by those who think differently than themselves. They take every display of this group's beliefs as a personal assault. And, no, I'm not talking about liberals. I'm talking about strident atheists.

Vox Day calls them "socially autistic". I'll buy that. These clowns think that the display of any Christian symbol anywhere is a direct threat to their person, and they're not afraid to be vocal about it.

Their latest crusade (ironic choice of words, no?) is to ban Christian-themed license plates.

You've seen the dopey "theme" plates. Penn State Alumna. Miami Dolphins. Save the bay. Choose life. It seems like every imaginable group is pushing to get its own particular personalization. And, trust me, if Maryland ever came out with a 49ers-themed plate, I'd be all over it.

I rather doubt that anyone thinks that by putting out a Miami Dolphins-themed plate the state of Florida is endorsing the Dolphins over any other football team. You don't see Tampa Bay fans panicking over that, do you?

But the autistic atheists think that one Christian-themed plate is one too many.

[T]he plates may constitute a state sanctioning of one religion over another, and that raises the ire of non-Christians and free speech advocates.

"Free speech advocates". Now there's an oxymoron!

These people don't want free speech for anyone but themselves. Express your love for Christ, expect to be shouted down by the "free speech advocates".

For putting their little tender sensibilities ahead of the free-speech rights of Christians, strident atheists are the Wiener of the Week.

Another "faith shaking" news story

Am I the only one who gets tired of reading news reports trumpeted as "shaking the faith" or "redefining who Jesus was" that turn out to be significantly less than advertised? Here's yet another such "revelation".

A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

Yawn. Yeah, my faith is quaking in its boots.

The article goes on to quote a professor of Taludic studies (a Rabbi?!?!?), who proceeds to pontificate to Christians what they should think of this momentous find.

"This should shake our basic view of Christianity," he said as he sat in his office of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem where he is a senior fellow in addition to being the Yehezkel Kaufman Professor of Biblical Studies at Hebrew University. "Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story."

Suuuuure it was. Anything you say, pal.

The danger of these articles is that most people are inherently lazy in their news reading habits and seldom get past the first 5 paragraphs of an article. Because, had a brotha kept on reading into the guts of the article, they would find this.

Regarding Knohl's thesis, Bar-Asher is also respectful but cautious. "There is one problem," he said. "In crucial places of the text there is lack of text. I understand Knohl's tendency to find there keys to the pre-Christian period, but in two to three crucial lines of text there are a lot of missing words."

Ah, yes! The old fill-in-the-missing-words-with-your-preconceptions ruse. In fact, the main section the Rabbi/professor trumpets as the money quote has two unreadable words and an "unusual spelling" as part of it.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: these people are NOT about revealing Jesus in a historical context, they're about destroying the faith of the weak. Read what they have to say, but do so with a generous dose of cynicism, and make sure to look for those "disclaimer" paragraphs: that's where you'll find the information that makes discernment possible.

Wiener of the Week

This week's WotW will reveal that the Vulture is, if nothing else, consistent and fair (to a point). About two weeks ago I jumped ugly on atheists who were rude, condescending, and cruel to Rachel Lucas when her boyfriend's dad was lying in a hospital in a coma, all because she titled a post about her praying for him "There are no atheists in a foxhole". Earlier this week, I jumped ugly on strident homosexuals who are always in your face with their agenda when commenting on the two Anglican priests who got "married".

Now it's time for me to jump ugly on MY team. Meet the quintessential strident Christian.

A public school teacher preached his Christian beliefs despite complaints by other teachers and administrators and used a device to burn the image of a cross on students' arms, according to a report by independent investigators.

Mount Vernon Middle School teacher John Freshwater also taught creationism in his science class and was insubordinate in failing to remove a Bible and other religious materials from his classroom, the report said.

Are you f'ing kidding me?!?!?!? Mr. Freshwater, you are a total tool. NO ONE should EVER be coerced into anything, let alone Christianity! If I were the king of the world (thank your lucky stars that I'm NOT), I'd have you turned over to Islamic extremists to have you tortured until you agreed to convert to Islam. Because, sir, that's essentially what you have done in your public school classroom.

Stridency is stridency, whether it's feminists in your face, homosexuals in your face, atheists in your face, or flaming extremist Christians in your face. You, sir, are an extreme example of how NOT to be a Christian. And you, John Freshwater, are the Wiener of the Week. May God have mercy on your soul.

 

As The Anglican Church Turns

When I think of liberal Christian theology, the Anglican (Episcopalian) Church is the first to pop into my mind. Whether it be gay priests, or gay marriage, they're at the forefront of being trendy rather than boldly magnifying our Lord.

Now two Anglican priests have married. Huzzah, huzzah.

Two male priests exchanged vows and rings in a ceremony that was conducted using one of the church's most traditional wedding rites – a decision seen as blasphemous by conservatives.

The ceremony broke Church of England guidelines and was carried out last month in defiance of the Bishop of London, in whose diocese it took place. News of the "wedding" emerged days before a crucial summit of the Anglican Church's conservative bishops and archbishops, who are threatening to split the worldwide Church over the issue of homosexual clergy.

Why is it that those who oppose turning their church into "singles night at the gay bar" are labeled "conservatives", which, in Liberal-speak means "those holding back progress"? How about maybe they simply wish to live within Biblical guidelines?

Now, mind you, I'm of the opinion, as a practicing libertarian, that when it comes to marriage, people can do whatever they like, and the government can call marriage anything it likes. It doesn't make it "marriage" in the eyes of God...but it's a nice social contract. After all, the only definition of marriage that really matters is the one from Genesis: one man, one woman, one lifetime.

Neither am I particularly offended by homosexuality nor homosexuals (the non-strident ones, anyway). I see homosexuality as a sin no more offensive to God than adultery, fornication, serial lying, stealing, hate, or pornography. As Jesus said, break one part of the Law and you've broken it all. And I have my own sins to deal with; I haven't the time nor the energy to sit around and judge others for theirs.

Vox Day sums up the libertarian view of government involvement in marriage quite nicely.

Being a libertarian, I see no reason why the government should be involved in any way with the private social contracts written between individuals. Marriage is no more subject to legal definition than friendship; what passes for government-defined "marriage" is no more marriage than a fish is a frog. A marriage license is simply a binding legal contract between three parties that happens to share a name with the ancient institution. The state governments didn't even control the licensing until 1853, so either no one was legally married in America before then or there is a complete distinction between marriage and the tripartite legal institution that was redefined [May 15th] in California.

But Vulture, this isn't an issue dealing with government involvement in marriage, so why even bring that up? I bring it up to show you where I'm coming from, so that when I speak out against these showboating Anglican priests, you'll have a context within which to understand my views, and also so that I can't simply be labeled and ignored by asshat liberals.

This is typical of the agenda of strident gay militancy. They're not content with gay people being left alone. They're not content with gay people being tolerated, or even treated as "normal" (whatever THAT is). No, they've got to be in your face 24/7, rubbing your nose in their stridency.

This "marriage" is both a publicity stunt and a way to poke the "conservative" Anglicans in the eye. These "progressives" WANT to trigger a crisis within the Church in order to assure that THEIR AGENDA is the CHURCH'S agenda. They don't care if the "conservative" Anglicans break away and form a new church; they'd be peachy-keen all kinda happy with that. All that matters to them is that they get what they want.

So to Mr.-and-Mr. Orombi-Williams I say this: Nice stunt. But does it magnify Jesus? I mean, isn't THAT what you are supposed to be doing as ministers? Hmmm?

Atheist hate

Why is it that so many of those who identify themselves as atheists are major a-holes? Vox Day refers to them as Socially Autistic, but I'm not quite so nice (BTW, Vox also blogged on this same "event" today, in case you want to check out what he had to say.

There's a young woman from Texas named Rachel Lucas who blogs about various themes and issues. She's quite popular (hold the jealousy, Vulture!). Over the weekend, her boyfriend's dad was involved in a bad motorcycle accident. He's pretty mangled. The doctors put him into a coma for his own protection (he was thrashing pretty badly) and to help with the cerebral swelling. This is the context within which this little episode occurred.

Rachel made the mistake of titling a post, "There are no atheists in a fox hole". Everyone over a certain age (trust me, I'm over a certain age) knows that this truism dates back to WW II. Well, almost everyone knows -- certainly the asshat atheists didn't, either that or they were just spoiling for a fight. She received page after page of hate- and profanity-filled shinola from the "intellectuals" who comprise the atheist community. Here's Rachel in her own defense.

The update I posted about Rupert’s dad was titled “There are no atheists in a foxhole.” Which anyone who reads here regularly would understand is my way of poking fun at myself, seeing as how publicly, on this blog, I’ve repeatedly identified myself as feeling like either an atheist or an agnostic, depending on my mood. I’ve regularly criticized Christians and their beliefs and have asked them to defend themselves, which they did, some nicely and some not. I’ve been very open about the fact that I simply don’t know the truth even though I’d like to, and that I find debates about religion interesting because they give you such a window into how other people think and view the world. There’s a whole category here called “Religion” but the point is, I have no religion. I reject organized Christianity and every other religion that’s ever been.

So I used that quote to describe the way I was feeling at that moment, while writing about a loved one who is in a coma. I was feeling down and sad and worried, and I used that quote because whenever I’m in a scary situation, I think about whether there’s a God, and I almost always find myself believing that there is because it helps me and comforts me to do so. The belief diminishes my suffering, simple as that. It may be wishful thinking but so what? It helps me and hurts no one.

Well. That post title really, really, really pissed off some atheists.

---

So I hope the atheists have gotten what they wanted from me. That’s what I’m here for, to use “offensive” quotes during emotional times and to be instructed with great gusto and attention about what a bigoted jackass I am so that I’ll never use such quotes again and all the world will learn what happens to you when you make that mistake. It’s really quite marvelous and I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m ready to join their organization RIGHT NOW, if they’ll have me.

They just seem like such kind and considerate people, out there teaching the world about tolerance and overcoming bigotry, spreading their word wherever they think it’s necessary for the furtherance of enlightenment and elimination of negative stereotypes about atheists, even if it means hijacking a thread on a personal blog about someone in a coma. Because TRUTH is all that matters, people. Learn it and live it.

Actually, the quoted material above doesn't do the post justice; she handled herself very well. You should read it for yourself.

I know there are REALLY clueless Christians who would have confronted Rachel with a whole sermonette full of fire and brimstone to "convert" her in her hour of pain and anxiety. They're jerks -- it's not the time nor the place.

But I'm pretty sure -- REALLY sure -- that no Christian would treat her like these two paragons of intellectualism.

If you are going to pray “just in case”, I suggest you pray to as many different gods as possible. If not, you may be praying to the wrong one. And don’t forget to gather a few additional lucky charms while you’re at it. I suggest a rabbit’s foot, 4 leaf clover, and a horseshoe for starters. Then you might want to do a Google search for lucky charms. There may be a number of them recognized by other cultures which are effective that we don’t know about.

Then you might want to tackle eliminating all the bad luck charms. You never know, that might make a difference as well.

If you are comforted by these measures which give the appearance of ‘doing something’, then why limit them to simply praying to one potential god when there are so many other acts of magical thinking which are comforting in situations where there is little else one can control.
- Skeptigirl

Your opening post is a lie. There ARE atheists in foxholes… even if you don’t “believe” there are. Pat Tilman was just such an atheist. Educate yourself and quit deleting posts who try to lessen the bigotry you spread. http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/

Lying for Jesus is still lying. I hope your friend gets better. I hope he never is the bigot you are.

Just because your faith makes you feel all humble and honest… doesn’t make it true, you know.
- A Third Atheist (articulett)

Doesn't it make you warm all over to see the concern they have for...right. No concern. No thought for her injured family member ("get better so you can represent non-bigotry" hardly counts). No thought for her feelings as she goes through a tough time. Only hatred, contempt, and vitriol. Kinda makes you hope with all your might that there IS a hell, just so those a-holes can go there.

Don't think it can't happen here -- part deux

Lest you think I was being alarmist last week when I wrote about the arrest of 2 preachers in Norway, here's something a little closer to home.

A priest is being investigated as a potential criminal under a federal "hate crimes" law for quoting from the Bible, and he's being targeted using a Canadian provision under which no defendant ever has been acquitted, according to a new report.

Pete Vere, a canon lawyer and Catholic journalist, has reported on the prosecution of Father Alphonse de Valk, a pro-life activist known across Canada, by the Canadian Human Rights Commission – "a quasi-judicial investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it" – at CatholicExchange.com.

"What was Father de Valk's alleged 'hate act'?" Vere wrote.

"Father defended the [Catholic] Church's teaching on marriage during Canada's same-sex 'marriage' debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages – many of whom are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman," he wrote.

So...all of this "tolerance" and political correctness is, what? Only for preferred groups? I mean, if an Imam had said the same things, would the reaction have been the same? Would the Ministry of Love...excuse me, the Human Rights Commission...be so quick to leap on that religious leader to make an example of him?

We're headed in the exact same direction that Europe and Canada traveled before us. Free speech is under attack on all fronts, not the least of which is religious free speech (provided it isn't Muslim religious free speech). Only a major stink from the populous will prevent this inevitability, and I'm not confident that the sheeple of this country are up for the task. Are you?

Wiener of the Month

The WotM for April is quite the no-brainer. Who else could it be but the Stoßtruppen from Texas?

Wrong.

THIS nanny-state worshiping asshat is the Wiener of the Month.

Get a load (and I do mean a load) of this.

Lawyers for the FLDS members – who reside not only at YFZ but also at compounds located in Arizona, Utah, South Dakota, and Bountiful, British Columbia, Canada -- have been arguing in the press that the entry and removal of the children constituted a "massive" violation of due process. Others have argued that the authorities' actions represent the unfair targeting of one religion.

Each of these arguments is singularly misguided.

Exqueeze me? Misguided? Would you care to explain how the state-sanctioned kidnapping of 400+ children on the flimsiest of leads is acceptable? Oh, she would LOVE to explain it!

Whether or Not the Caller Was Legitimate, the Important Point is the Lack of Any Government Misconduct and the Serious Evidence of Crimes to Children

Yeah....that would explain the hundreds of indictments that have been....what do you mean, there haven't been any indictments? I'm S-O-O-O confused. /sarcasm

A Sect In Deep Denial of Its Crimes Cannot Be Trusted with Its Children

Are you shitting me? So now it's Law Enforcement's job to judge, on the spot and without any sort of judicial or jury review, not only whether a crime has been committed, but also whether there are delusional people among those being raided, which is immediate grounds for kidnapping their children? Lady, put down the crack pipe!

This raid was about child abuse, and as I explain above, it is not really any different than authorities entering a drug den or a private home where there are credible accounts of abuse. The child protective services universe is sufficiently stable by now that whoever is sexually abusing a child can be made to stop. It is the best interest of the child that determines government action.

"It is the best interest of the child that determines government action." That actually scares me. I exaggerate not.

Okay, were this just some random donkey spouting inanities, I could perhaps overlook it -- after all, you don't see me going off on the contributors to The Daily Kos, do you? But this ISN'T some random asshat - this is a Princeton University law professor!

Marci Hamilton: for your gross ignorance of the United States Constitution and your complete lack of understanding of basic common-sense law, you are the Wiener of the Month for April!