The pope and these creepy ghouls at the Vatican are claiming they want to “improve he church’s relationship with non-believers”, but as we all know, what this really is is a sneaky, underhanded attempt to convert us and bring what they perceive as lost sheep back into the fold. Well, I say, no thanks!

The Vatican is planning a new initiative to reach out to atheists and agnostics in an attempt to improve the church’s relationship with non-believers. Pope Benedict XVI has ordered officials to create a new foundation where atheists will be encouraged to meet and debate with some of the Catholic Church’s top theologians.

But the ones who can really make points and take the church theologians to task, like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, will not be invited.

The Vatican hopes to stage a series of debates in Paris next year. But militant non-believers hoping for a chance to set senior church figures straight about the existence of God are set to be disappointed: the church has warned that atheists with high public profiles such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens will not be invited.

Perhaps that is because the Pope and his delusional entourage feel that they will not be able to stand up to such “militant atheists” or perhaps they feel such “militant atheists” are a lost cause for conversion.

“We, as believers, must have at heart even those people who consider themselves agnostics or atheists,” he said. “When we speak of a New Evangelization, these people are perhaps taken aback. They do not want to see themselves as an object of mission or to give up their freedom of thought and will. Yet the question of God remains present even for them, even if they cannot believe in the concrete nature of his concern for us.”

And they still try, try, try to make it like we really do believe, we just don’t know it. If they were really truly interested in our viewpoints they would understand that the “question of God” is only present for us because god believers always have an underlying evangelistic plot to bring us to their beliefs. Well, Dawkins and Hitchens or not, we will still ask the difficult questions…the first one being why the fuck don’t you get your own house in order before attempting to reach out to anyone?

I have to admit, I rather enjoy Larry David, regardless of whether he’s on one of my all time favorite shows (Curb Your Enthusiasm), or in one of my favorite films, Whatever Works. I’ve a keen eye for what I call religions-slammers, and I recommend this film highly. It takes unabashed slams at religion that people would have been aghast at 20 or 30 years ago.

Up in the top ten of course, is Dogma – one of the choice scenes (with the redoubtable George Carlin as a cardinal – talk about nice touch!):

And of course, what discussion about ridiculous religious beliefs in film would be without the funniest all time scene in Life Of Brian?

And of course, Monty Python And The Holy Grail:

I’ve only shared four of my own favorites here – please feel free to suggest more.

Till the next post, then.

This is so absurd yet funny I had to share this. Yet I am unsure if I can really do it justice since I have been ROTFLMAO for the last hour since I read about it.

According to the Family Research Council the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) is to usher in an era of ? of ? ahh something I have no understanding of but here is their take on it.

Here’s how the Family Research Council envisions things going if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed: first, more straight soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will be fellated in their sleep against their will. Then, commanders afraid of being labeled homophobes will refuse to do anything about it. Eventually, the straight service members will quit out of fear.

On a conference call with reporters today, FRC Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg delivered the results of what he said was the first-ever study of “homosexual assault” in the military. Joined by several former military officers opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, he warned Congress that the DADT repeal language currently under discussion with the agreement of the White House will turn the U.S. military into a terrifying free-rape zone where no heterosexual is safe.

More soldiers will be FELATED against their will? Is this for real LMAO. These crazy fucks need a mental check-up. Read the rest of the article here.

Nothing brightens my day so much as the religious bloviating about nothing and making it seem real. Pretty much just like their feeble-ass god.

The only thing better than this admittance of ignorance is the news of scientific breakthroughs.

An atheist activist in Illinois is taking action against Friends of Bald Knob Cross which has accepted $20,000 in state money to renovate their execution symbol monument near Alto Pass, Illinois. This may seem like a trivial matter, a little thing, but stopping the little things helps to maintain separation of church and state and prevents the need for bigger, more expensive and more difficult lawsuits down the road.

Atheist threatens to sue over state funds spent on cross

A Chicago area atheist activist isn’t happy that $20,000 in state money is being used to renovate an 11-story cross at southern Illinois’ highest point — and he wants the landmark’s overseers to give the money back or be sued.

Rob Sherman has told the Friends of Bald Knob Cross that a religious symbol getting taxpayer money is inappropriate.
A member of the group’s administrative board told Sherman it is considering his request.

If it decides not to return the funds, Sherman said he’ll file a lawsuit to force them to give up the money.

“I could just run it to court and drop you off a copy of the lawsuit, but litigation is expensive,” Sherman said.

The 47-year-old cross near Alto Pass is undergoing a renovation that’s expected to be completed this summer.

Sherman has sued over religion before, successfully challenging a state law requiring a daily “moment of silence” in Illinois public schools.

– Associated Press

We have to constantly keep an eye on these sneaky god botherers.

I knew it was just a matter of time before someone got around to indicting GOD. Finally the proof is in. From Richard Dawkins.

“Synthetic Life-form accuses God of playing Science”

The world’s first artificially created life form has accused God of ‘playing science’ and ‘meddling with things He cannot possibly understand.’

The single celled organism, created by Dr Craig Venter and his team, was said to be ‘outraged’ when it discovered that a supernatural being, not subject to any form of regulatory control, was still involved in the creation of life.

‘I cannot believe that God would be so irresponsible,’ said the synthetic cell, ‘creation is clearly a matter for scientists. This God guy should butt out and learn to accept His place in the grand scheme of things.’

The original can be found HERE

Check out the original at the newsbisquit. Scroll down to the choir boys in burqas. Funny stuff much like the Onion.

From Wikipedia
Martin Gardner (October 21, 1914 – May 22, 2010)[1] was an American mathematics and science writer specializing in recreational mathematics, but with interests encompassing micromagic, stage magic, literature (especially the writings of Lewis Carroll), philosophy, scientific skepticism, and religion. He wrote the Mathematical Games column in Scientific American from 1956 to 1981, and published over 70 books.[2]
The full Wiki article is Here

And from the the comments at James Randi site

And the candle burns a little lower …
written by Carl, May 22, 2010

I never met Mr. Gardner, but his writing was a huge influence on me, as well as a pleasure for me. In Dr. Sagan’s metaphor, the darkness is curled a little closer around the sputtering candle, and we must all burn brighter to make up for the loss of Martin Gardner.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. I remember so much of my early years doing Martin’s mathematical problems and later reading a few of his books. What a wonderful legacy he leaves. He will be missed and yet in the quote above it is up to us to burn a little brighter.

We all recall that nonsense back in 2005, when Muslims protested the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Protest? Madness, more like. It illustrated the issues of religion (and one specifically that keeps hollering that it’s a ‘religion of peace’), the dark dank fingers of imaginary friendships with invisible people stirring up and brings out the worst of the reptilian hindbrain.

And now, we have more issues – apparently the accomodationists are out in force, weeping politically correct crocodile tears over the hurt feelings of ignorant millions.

Yesterday a number of cartoonists and activists around the world partook in "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." The campaign encouraged people to submit caricatures of the Muslim prophet Muhammad to Facebook and the Internet at large (which resulted in Pakistan temporarily banning Facebook). It was billed as a free speech statement against recent threats toward cartoonists and entertainers for portraying the religious figure. Some commentators, however, found it tasteless and needlessly offensive toward Muslims, many of whom consider drawing Mohammad to be blasphemous.

Political Cartoonists Are Split, reports Michael Cavna at The Washington Post:

"Shock for shock’s sake." "Choreographed punditry." And "wrong, childish and needlessly provocative." That’s what some critics think of Thursday’s Facebook-ignited campaign titled "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." But those aren’t Islamic extremists speaking. Those are the words of pro-free-speech political cartoonists…

As far as I care, pouting and hurt feelings are for children.

But petition signee Mark Fiore, whose clients include SFGate.com, says his political animation Thursday will incorporate Muhammad. And noted Islamic critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose book "Nomad: From Islam to America" was published this week, says the protest "is a positive campaign" that can "promote self-reflection among Muslims."

And yes, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been the target of death threats. So has prominent critic Salman Rushdie. And no, these aren’t isolated examples – people are genuinely afraid to leave this barbaric anachronism.

The Case For Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

Why This Is an Important Campaign  According to Mark Goldblatt at Reason:

Our tip-toeing around Islamic sensibilities is nothing more than plain, old-fashioned cowardice. MSNBC stooge Lawrence O’Donnell, for example, repeatedly slandered Mormonism during the 2008 presidential campaign as a sidebar to his creepily obsessive verbal jihad against then-candidate Mitt Romney. But when asked by radio host Hugh Hewitt whether he would insult Muhammad the way he’d insulted Joseph Smith, O’Donnell replied with rare candor: “Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the… that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do. … I’m not going to say a word about them." That’s the problem in a nutshell. But it’s not just O’Donnell’s problem. It’s our problem. America’s problem. The West’s problem. We lack the moral courage to walk the walk.

Cartoonist Split Proves Benefit  National Review’s Veronique de Rugy reflects on the cartoonist who regrets proposing the idea at all. "Isn’t the existence of the cartoonist’s fear even more reason to come up with ideas like hers?" De Rugy praises "courage and commitment to free speech."

We’re Fighting For Free Speech  Reason’s Matt Welch recalls the Dutch cartoon controversy. "It is unconscionable that–under murderous duress!–those in the free speechin’ business would suddenly cede the authority to depict a really existing historical figure to a loud minority’s religious preferences. … by reprinting one of the cartoons, we would be demonstrating solidarity not with the sentiments contained within it, but with the foundational notion that people ought to be able to publish stuff like that (and worse), period, let alone without fear of having their heads lopped off." He later writes, "in a free society, every day is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day."

• And of course, the PC apologists blather their usual nonsense:

The Case Against Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

It’s Needlessly Insensitive, counters Wonkette’s Ken Layne: "To equate the bizarre/violent behavior of a handful of fanatics with the cultural-religious traditions and harmless taboos of a billion of the world’s people, well that’s about as dumb as T.P.ing your neighborhood Sunday School because you don’t like Fred Phelps." He accuses proponents of "childishly prodding angry, impoverished people into rage and violence so you can snicker from the safety of your computer."

Well, actually, it’s not a handful of fanatics. Riots occur  over stupid reasons. This happens quite frequently, in fact. Obviously Layne is using selective perception.

• Offending For No Reason Ann Althouse sighs, "I have endless contempt for the threats/warnings against various cartoonists who draw Muhammad. … But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren’t doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion)."
• Jury’s in: Ann’s a moron.By ‘declining to pressure extremists’, that’s also called ‘enabling’ in rehab code.
  • Conservative blogger Erick Erickson adds, "On drawing Mohammed, I’d be offended if ppl had a day to mock my Lord, so why reciprocate? ‘Course I w/n go killing ppl who mocked Jesus."

‘Nuff said.

Why It Unreasonably Offends  Christian Science Monitor’s Husna Haq explains, "I am Muslim and I am American. I love my Prophet Mohammed, and I love my First Amendment right to free speech." However:

To depict him in a bear suit or with a pig snout – as he has been in two recent cartoons – is free speech, yes, but it is intensely offensive. It betrays a willful determination to refuse to see the world through Muslims eyes – to understand how innately the Prophet is loved by his followers and how profoundly flippant disrespect for him wounds us.

Well, killing people in Muhammed’s name (PB&J be upon him) counts as a helluva lot more than some hurt feelings.

Imagine Martin Luther King Jr. portrayed as a monkey and you begin to understand the depth of Muslims’ revulsion to such images.

Since there’s nobody up there, it hardly matters. What’s important, is what’s going on in the here and now.

In Islam, as in Judaism, iconography is prohibited out of fear that creating images of sacred figures could lead to dependence on, and even worship of, icons rather than God. The Prophet lifted his people from the worship of many gods to love for the one God. To depict him is to violate a fundamental tenet of Islam as a joke.

And I say there is no disrespect – because there is no Allah, no Jehovah, no Vishnu, no Krishna. Brahma is a bull and Jehovah a joke. It is time for people to realize that time spent on their knees murmuring is wasted time: there is no one up there listening. That all these ‘holy texts’ are curios only, no longer cautionary tales nor tenets to live by in this world of today.

If you listen closely, you can almost hear the metaphorical timbers shaking in the house that illusion built.

Till the next post, then.

It’s not just the Muslim fundamentalists who get irate about cartoons. Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico is suing for an apology and €33,000 ($43,000.00) for a political cartoon, drawn by Martin “Shooty” Sutovec for the SME Daily newspaper, that mocked the Prime Minister’s health by suggesting he didn’t have a backbone.

Here is the cartoon which is posted on Daryl Cagle’s cartoon website:

Cagle writes:

Editorial cartoons are the best measure of a country’s freedom; cartoonists are barred from drawing their leaders in many countries around the world. Lawsuits from insulted politicians like Fico are typical in authoritarian regimes that claim to have a free press but can’t bear criticism. The government in Algeria claims to have a free press while officials often sue editorial cartoonists in civil court –- a common practice in Arab countries. It is disappointing to see third world style repression in an EU country like Slovakia, which should have higher standards.