“Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.” – Thomas Paine

Well, it’s true: America has some serious reforms. We need more jobs, we need something vaguely resembling universal healthcare, we still need to eliminate poverty and needless suffering, and provide better education. The laundry list goes on, at length, seemingly ad infinitum. But complain as we so often do, it’s an easy thing to forget just how lucky we atheists  are.

For one such item, if I were to post my anti-religious declamations (as I do here and at my own blog) and I were living in a Sharia state, I could very well be punished with anything ranging from a fine to beheading. Whereas here in the US, we can actually argue what constitutes ‘blasphemy’ in court, and whether it’s allowed. And we have a pretty good clue that the ‘free exchange of ideas’ motto doesn’t fly in some communist states.

I’ll not debate the fact that America has in some abstract way let us down that varies according to interpretation, but we should celebrate the right to interpret. Because after all, freedom of religion is impossible without freedom from religion.

And let’s face it: we have the higher standard of living, ergo a higher standard of education, thanks to our glut of resources, that we can actually afford to be atheists. In other countries, it’s difficult (and likely impossible in some) to actually break free of the powerful superstitions that have become entrenched in societies.

Knowledge is power, after all.

Celebrate your freedom. Celebrate the Fourth, and safely. Allow me to top this off with a quote from one of my heroes, Thomas Paine:

We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities.
Thomas Paine

Till the next post, then.

Pakistan. The country that was specifically created for the Muslims.  A country pockmarked by religious controversy and riots.

It is no surprise to any of us, that these sort of headlines are commonplace:

Pakistan to monitor Google and Yahoo for ‘blasphemy’

Pakistan will start monitoring seven major websites, including Google and Yahoo, for content it deems offensive to Muslims.

YouTube, Amazon, MSN, Hotmail and Bing will also come under scrutiny, while 17 less well-known sites will be blocked.

Officials will monitor the sites and block links deemed inappropriate.

In May, Pakistan banned access to Facebook after the social network hosted a "blasphemous" competition to draw the prophet Muhammad.

The new action will see Pakistani authorities monitor content published on the seven sites, blocking individual pages if content is judged to be offensive.

Telecoms official Khurram Mehran said links would be blocked without disturbing the main website.

As no doubt you are all aware, Pakistan has the strictest anti-blasphemy laws – you literally cannot  badmouth religion in that country. On pain of death.

And of course, the UN concurs. Because when you grant rights to an idea over the rights of a human being, you are (indirectly) giving free rein to terrorist bullshit. And let’s face it folks: you take young men, tell them they can’t masturbate or can’t have sex until marriage, well, all that energy has to go somewhere, doesn’t it? I know that I would be extremely irritable if that were so, but luckily I live in a country that isn’t as stringent as some of these ass-backwards Sharia countries.

And this garbage isn’t happening in Pakistan alone – Indonesia is also in the grips of this stone-age anachronistic horse manure:

One of Indonesia’s top celebrities has been charged under an anti-pornography law for his alleged role in sex videos which have appeared on the internet.

Pop star Nazril "Ariel" Irham and two other celebrities, TV presenter Luna Maya and soapstar Cut Tari, have denied involvement in the sex tapes.

The scandal has angered many in Muslim-dominated Indonesia.

Some conservative Islamic groups have called for the celebrities to be punished.

Zainuri Lubis, deputy spokesman of the National Police, told the BBC that Ariel had been charged with the making and distribution of the sex tapes under the controversial anti-pornography law.

He is the first high-profile person to be charged under the law, which came into effect in 2008 despite strong opposition from the public and members of government.

The law has been criticised for being too vague and for its harsh penalties.

Ariel’s charge carries with it a maximum sentence of 12 years and a fine of more than $600,000 (£403,000).

The Abrahamic religions sure seems to be obsessed with sexuality. Human sexuality is a driving force – it could well be said that civilization owes a large debt to it, as much of civilization was an effort to impress the opposite sex (to paraphrase Orson Welles and Futurama). It may not be a force to be feared, but it is to be reckoned with. But when a society is in the thrall of an iron age set of rules better left centuries ago, fear is all those people will know.

Islam (AKA Asslam): it’s gotta go.

Till the next post, then.

Whenever I write about religion, I’m often asked, “What makes you an expert?”

I’ve got news for you.  We’re all experts on religion to one degree or another, every last one of us.  Religion is not like, say, heart surgery or entomology or aviation.  Sure, there are people who spend years in school studying theology and the bible, years in seminaries becoming clergymen.  But there are also people who wake up one morning and decide to start their very own religion, and then do it.  You, if you so desired, could go online and, for a small fee (small compared to the tuition that would be required to get a degree in anything), become an ordained minister, start a church and – presto-chango! – become a tax-free religion (yes, it really is that easy).

In any field of endeavor in which you are free to make it up as you go along, the word “expert” has little or no meaning.

We’re all experts on religion by virtue of our experience with it.  No matter who you are, no matter what your religion or denomination, whether you’re agnostic, atheist, Satanist, Rotarian, Pisces, a Nobel Prize winner or someone who lives in a refrigerator box in an alley with nothing to your name but a grocery cart full of unmatched old shoes, you have had a great deal of experience with religion.  If you live in the United States, you’ve had more than most.

The United States of America is the most religious nation in the industrialized world.  According to a 2009 survey of 21,000 people in 21 countries conducted by the Bertelsmann Foundation’s Religion Monitor, 89% of Americans identify themselves as religious, 62% highly religious.  In the United States — an ostensibly secular nation whose Constitution makes no mention of god, Jesus Christ, the bible, or the ten commandments and mentions religion only to prohibit from government its promotion or hindrance — 76% of Protestants and 65% of Catholics say that religion influences their political views in ways ranging from moderate to substantial.

If you live in the United States, religion is a part of your everyday life, and that religion is Christianity.  Whether you’re religious or not, believer or atheist, Jew or Muslim, Democrat or Republican, outraged by it or indifferent to it, it’s everywhere you go, everywhere you look.  You can’t even sneeze without someone invoking a deity.  Literally!  The only way to avoid it is to stay home and never leave your house.  But even that doesn’t work, because then they will bring it to your door.

We are all experts on religion, whether we like it or not, and that qualifies us to speak out about it.  The only problem is … that’s not really allowed.

Religion has always been an untouchable subject.  We are not allowed to comment on someone’s religious beliefs in any way that does not involve abject praise unless we’re willing to be pilloried by nearly everyone within earshot.  Why?  That is a very good question.

We can argue about politics, sports, movies, history, literature, art, science and any other topic you can imagine to our hearts’ content.  We can disagree about them and with them, criticize them, ridicule them, denounce them, and no one cares.  But when it comes to religion, we are expected — by some unwritten law, some unspoken universal agreement — to respect the beliefs of others and remain silent about them.  No.  Matter.  What.

If a man says he cannot leave the house without flipping every light switch in it on and off 40 times so the earth won’t burst into flames, we might tell him that he has a treatable problem and urge him to get help, and that’s acceptable.  If a man says he can fly and intends to jump off a cliff to prove it, we do everything we can to stop him because we know he is delusional and will kill himself, and that’s acceptable.  If someone says he doesn’t like us because of the color of our skin, or our weight, or our political affiliation, we can tell him to go piss up a rope and that’s acceptable.  But if parents refuse to get medical treatment for a sick child because that goes against their religious beliefs and they are certain that god will intervene and heal the child, we are expected to zip our lips and respect that because it is a religious belief and it is somehow unacceptable to say or do anything that might offend the believer.  Even the state is reluctant to step into such situations, although it sometimes happens — and then many become outraged and complain that religious rights are being violated.  If someone comes to your door on an otherwise peaceful Saturday morning to inform you that your soul is in danger of eternal damnation if you do not embrace their religion and live your life the way they say you should — which, as far as I’m concerned, is the height of arrogance and obnoxiousness because this person has actually come to your home to do it — you are expected to gently, politely decline, thank that person for stopping by and send him on his way with a smile, because it would be unacceptable and offensive to the believer to cut him off mid-sentence and tell him and his bible to get the hell off your porch before you get the garden hose.

Every human being on the face of the earth deserves respect.  But somehow, we have allowed ourselves to be convinced that those human beings who choose to believe in invisible, unprovable, and nonexistent things — and, in turn, to believe that we must believe in those things, too, or we are bad people who will be eternally lost — entitles them to some greater degree of respect, and we must be tolerant and silently endure their presumption, arrogance and simply rude behavior because they believe and have faith — and aren’t those wonderful things?

Well, I disagree with the whole arrangement.  I have nothing whatsoever against people practicing their religion, but when it intrudes on my privacy and disrupts my life, when it is rudely pushed at me, or when it abuses others or is used to break the law, I must object.  I’ve discovered that I am far from alone in objecting, but even most of those who feel as I do are afraid to voice their feelings because of the inevitable response, which is always swift and angry and sometimes even threatening and violent.  And that is unacceptable.

I don’t expect religion to go away.  That won’t happen anytime soon, and certainly not in my lifetime.  Although I must admit that this would be a better world without it.  It would be a freer, more peaceful world and we would have advanced farther and faster than we have with it.  By now, without religion, we’d probably have those damned flying cars we were promised by the year 2000.  At the very least, Salman Rushdie’s security bill would be a lot more manageable.

I am a sincere and enthusiastic supporter of the freedom of religion provided by the United States Constitution.  Hell, I’m a cheerleader for it.  I agree that everyone should be able to worship as they please, believe whatever they want, and apply those beliefs to their lives.  Spirituality is an intensely personal and individual thing for those who embrace or need it, and no one should ever be made to feel that their spirituality must conform to anyone else’s.  Our founding fathers recognized that individuality and wanted to protect it, which is why the Constitution declares that no one religion will be recognized by the United States government, which remains secular and divorced from religion.  That is left up to the individual.  And that is a significant part of what makes that document one of the greatest ever written.

But not everyone embraces or needs religion (or, if you prefer, spirituality) or is even interested in it.  Those of us who fit that description should not have to keep swatting religion away like swarming flies as we go about our business.  We shouldn’t have to deal with pamphlet-bearing Christians who come to our door and claim to have something we cannot live without.  We should not have to listen to politicians, who are annoying enough as it is, talk about god or Jesus or prayer or about how this is a Christian nation when it most certainly is not; it is a secular nation that is populated mostly by Christians — there’s a big difference.

It is not my intention to offend anyone, but in the case of religion, it is virtually impossible not to.  One does not need to attack or insult a religious person to cause offense — one need only to disagree with, question, or in any way criticize that person’s religion.  I have found religious people to be among the most thin-skinned on the planet.  They demand that everyone respect their religion by complimenting or praising it or saying nothing at all — and yet they seem incapable of showing respect as they routinely and casually criticize and condemn others who do not share their beliefs for living lives of which their religion does not approve.  They spout and spew their dogmatic nonsense freely and without pause.  But when others openly disagree or criticize, their response is, “Just shut up!”

The Constitution guarantees us the freedom to believe –- or not believe — as we see fit, but nowhere in that document is there a guarantee that others will agree with our beliefs.  Nowhere is there a guarantee that others who do not share our beliefs will take seriously our gods and rituals.  And there certainly isn’t anything about others being required to show reverence or deference to a god or a belief system that they do not worship or share.  There’s not even any requirement that they take them seriously.

While they may be the majority in the United States, the right guaranteed by the Constitution is not guaranteed to Christians alone.  It is guaranteed to each and every single individual in this country so that individuals can decide for themselves what they believe according to their own conscience.  It guarantees these individuals the right to gather with others who share their beliefs and engage in rituals that uphold those beliefs.

And that’s about it, folks.

But somehow, any response to religion other than respectful silence has become a social crime in our culture!

In an April 23, 1803, letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Nothing but free argument, raillery and even ridicule will preserve the purity of religion.”  Jefferson didn’t think it was a crime — he thought it was a necessity.  Of course, Jefferson didn’t think too highly of the clergy.  He saw them as corrupt tyrants who controlled the masses with confusion, spiritual threats and mystical intimidation, and who craved ever more power.  Here are two excerpts from letters that serve as perfect examples of Jefferson’s attitude toward men of the cloth:

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
– To Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.  He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.  It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes.”
– To Horatio G Spafford, March 17, 1814

Jefferson did not trust the clergy.  He saw their greed for power and control as a threat to liberty, and it seems that he thought ridicule was one way of preventing that threat from being realized.  It’s pretty hard for something to become a threat to liberty as long as people are allowed to openly criticize it, expose its weaknesses and faults, and even joke about it.

Jefferson thought the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was utter nonsense and had no qualms about saying so.  He believed it was the kind of nonsense only a priest could decode and explain to his flock, using that concocted understanding as a tool to make himself necessary to them and further control their minds and lives.  In a July 30, 1816, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, he wrote:

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.  Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity.  It is the mere abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”

Can you imagine the outrage and uproar such a remark would cause today?  An infuriated and harrumphing Rush Limbaugh would vilify Jefferson for hours and hours on national radio, five days a week.  A sobbing Glenn Beck would denounce Jefferson as anti-American and declare him to be a supporter of concentration camps for Christian patriots.  Ann Coulter would call into question the size of Jefferson’s penis and his ability to use it.  And Fox News would go on red alert and probably hire extra on-air talent to handle the amount of incensed coverage the story would get.  All of that would happen because Jefferson’s fear has become a reality — speaking in any negative way about religion has become such a taboo that religion has been allowed to gain power and control it does not deserve.  Don’t believe me?  Let’s take a look at some of the things this unwritten law, this unspoken agreement has intimidated us into respecting with our silence.

Since 1949, Billy Graham has been the biggest Christian star since Jesus Christ himself.  He has been beloved by Christians around the world, and his “crusades” have always attracted massive throngs that would have made Cecil B. DeMille envious.  He’s the one evangelist people have taken the most seriously and have seen as the most sincere — so much so that he has been the pastor to the presidents.  But all of that should have been called into question when, on Thursday, February 28, 2002, the National Archives released an audio recording of an Oval Office meeting between Graham and then President Richard Nixon.  In reference to the influence the minister thought Jews had on the United States, Graham said, “This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain.”

“You believe that?” Nixon said.

“Yes, sir.”

Nixon said, “Oh, boy.  So do I.  I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.”

“No, but if you get elected a second time,” Graham said, “then we might be able to do something.”

Do something?  Wow.  Sounds like Billy was ready to fire up the ovens again.  I can see the two of them, Nixon and Billy, standing together in a crowded back yard, each wearing an apron — Nixon’s reads, “I am not a cook!” and Billy’s reads, “Eat this in remembrance of me” — and Billy, holding a spatula, shouts, “Okay, everybody, how do you like your Jews cooked?”

Later in that same conversation, Graham told Nixon that he had Jewish friends in the media who “swarm around me and are friendly to me. … They don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country.”

So, when Billy was preaching Jesus’s love and forgiveness all those years, apparently it did not extend to Jews … even though Jesus, according to the bible, was a Jew.  Another Jew — hmmm.  Tell you what, Billy, while you’re heating up those ovens, why don’t you grab a hammer and some big nails so just in case Jesus does decide to come back, you’ll be ready for him.

Jerry Falwell was a fundamentalist Baptist minister and televangelist who helmed a megachurch (a church that has 2,000 or more members) in Lynchburg, Virginia, founded Liberty Christian Academy and Liberty University, and cofounded the Moral Majority.  He was one of the most prominent and respected Christian leaders in the United States for decades.  During that time, he said some things that were, well … interesting.

In 1999, Falwell saw what he believed to be homosexual indoctrination in the UK TV show for preschoolers called The Teletubbies.  He identified one of the Teletubbies — a character named Tinky Winky — as gay in a “Parents Alert” in his National Liberty Journal.  Falwell wrote, “He is purple — the gay-pride color; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle — the gay-pride symbol.”  In a statement issued later, he said, “As a Christian I feel that role modelling the gay lifestyle is damaging to the moral lives of children.”

Some Christians see Satan around every corner, but Falwell saw gays, too.  Judging by some of the other things he said about gay people, one might conclude that Falwell thought Satan himself was gay.  In a March 11, 1984 broadcast of The Old Time Gospel Hour, in reference to the predominantly gay Metropolitan Community Church, Falwell said the following:

“But these things speak evil of those things, verse 10 (in the book of Jude) which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.  Look at the Metropolitan Community Church today, the gay church, almost accepted into the World Council of Churches.  Almost, the vote was against them.  But they will try again and again until they get in, and the tragedy is that they would get one vote.  Because they are spoken of here in Jude as being brute beasts, that is going to the baser lust of the flesh to live immorally, and so Jude describes this as apostasy.  But thank God this vile and satanic system will one day be utterly annihilated and there’ll be a celebration in heaven.”

Here are a few other choice quotes attributed to the good reverend:

“The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews.”

“The idea that religion and politics don’t mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.”

“There is no separation of church and state.  Modern US Supreme Courts have raped the Constitution and raped the Christian faith and raped the churches by misinterpreting what the Founders had in mind in the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

“I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools.  The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them.  What a happy day that will be!”

“Good Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.”

“If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being.”

And my personal favorite:

“AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals.  To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh’s charioteers … AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”

On September 13, 2001, Falwell appeared on fellow evangelist Pat Robertson’s TV show and said the following about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 only two days earlier:

“I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’”

The next day, when confronted with this remark on CNN, Falwell backpedaled:  “I would never blame any human being except the terrorists, and if I left that impression with gays or lesbians or anyone else, I apologize.”  But in May of 2007, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour asked him again about his remark.  Falwell said, “If we decide to change all the rules on which this Judeo-Christian nation was built we cannot expect the Lord to put his shield of protection around us as he has in the past.”  When Amanpour asked if he stood by his September 13, 2001, comment, he said, “I stand right by it.”  A week later, in a gesture of uncharacteristic consideration for others, Falwell had the good taste to die.

While he was certainly a master of the hateful, batshit-crazy statement, Falwell hardly cornered that market.  He had stiff competition from his good buddy Pat Robertson, who had the advantage of living on after Falwell’s death, thus having plenty of time to outdo Falwell’s sterling record of being a douchenozzle.

Although an ordained Southern Baptist minister, Robertson functions mostly as a political spokesman for conservative Christians in the United States.  Over the years, he has founded a university, a broadcasting network — all kinds of lucrative entities.  And he tried to run for president in the 1988 primaries.  He is, at this moment, probably the most prominent, influential and powerful — not to mention richest — Christian leader in this country.  He is the host of The 700 Club, a Christian TV show that airs throughout the United States.  Robertson has something to say about … well, everything.  It’s usually something jaw-droppingly stupid, obnoxious and hateful, and he usually says it on his TV show.  Here, in no particular order, is a selection of Pat Robertson quotes taken from The 700 Club’s page on the Internet Movie Database:

“The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people.  But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society.  And that’s what’s been happening.”

“The public education movement has also been an anti-Christian movement. We can change education in America if you put Christian principles in and Christian pedagogy in.  In three years, you would totally revolutionize education in America.”

(On homosexuals)  “It’s one thing to say, ‘We have rights to jobs, we have rights to be left alone in our little corner of the world to do our thing.’  It’s an entirely different thing to say, well, ‘We’re not only going to go into the schools and we’re going to take your children and your grandchildren and turn them into homosexuals.’  Now that’s wrong.”

“Why are so many marriages falling apart?  Why is the divorce rate so high?  Why is there such a tragedy in marriage?  Now the basic answer to the basic problem of marriages today is a question of leadership.  The wife actually makes the husband the head of the household and she looks to him and she says, ‘Now you pray, and I’m going to pray for you that the Lord will speak to you.’”

“If the widespread practice of homosexuality will bring about the destruction of your nation, if it will bring about terrorist bombs, if it’ll bring about earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, it isn’t necessarily something we ought to open our arms to.”

(On Apartheid in South Africa) “I think ‘one man, one vote,’ just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights.”

“Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals.  The two things seem to go together.”

“There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution.  It is a lie of the left and we are not going to take it anymore.”

“I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies.  Such people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate destruction of the family and our nation.  I am unalterably opposed to such things, and will do everything I can to restrict the freedom of these people to spread their contagious infection to the youth of our nation.”

“The key in terms of mental ability is chess. There’s never been a woman Grand Master chess player. Once you get one, then I’ll buy some of the feminism.”

(On Planned Parenthood)  “It is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism – everything that the Bible condemns.”

“I am absolutely persuaded one of the reasons so many lesbians are at the forefront of the pro-choice movement is because being a mother is the unique characteristic of womanhood, and these lesbians will never be mothers naturally, so they don’t want anybody else to have that privilege either.”

(A nifty-keen science lesson from Professor Roberts)  “I think the sky is blue because it’s a shift from black through purple to blue, and it has to do with where the light is. You know, the farther we get into darkness, and there’s a shifting of color of light into the blueness, and I think as you go farther and farther away from the reflected light we have from the sun or the light that’s bouncing off this earth, uh, the darker it gets. I think if you look at the color scale, you start at black, move it through purple, move it on out, it’s the shifting of color. We mentioned before about the stars singing, and that’s one of the effects of the shifting of colors.”

“NOW (the National Organization for Women) is saying that in order to be a woman, you’ve got to be a lesbian.”

Opposing the equal rights initiative in Iowa, Robertson wrote in a 1992 fundraising letter:

“The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women.  It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

On page 218 of his book The New World Order, Robertson wrote:

“When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm.  ‘What do you mean?’ the media challenged me.  ‘You’re not going to bring atheists into the government?  How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?’  My simple answer is, ‘Yes, they are.’”

The day after the January 12, 2010 7.0 earthquake in Haiti that killed as many as 200,000 people, Pat Robertson went on TV and said the Haitians had brought the earthquake on themselves:

“They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.’ True story. And so the devil said, ‘Ok it’s a deal.’ And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another.”

Of course, the above quotes are the words of only three of the most prominent Christian leaders, but there are many others whose statements are no less horrifying.

This is what we’re supposed to respect?  This is what we’re supposed to tolerate with our reverent silence?  This is what we’re not allowed to criticize?  How did this happen?  How have we been made into people who will sit still for this kind of — and I use this word loosely — thinking?

When we read of the horrific slaughter of certain races or religions throughout history, we often ask, How could this have been allowed to happen?  How could people stand by and do nothing while this was going on? The answer is simple.

We’re living in it!  This is how it happens — what we’re discussing right now, this unwritten law of silence and so called “respect” when it comes to religion in America.  We have been intimidated into silence, into saying and doing nothing while hateful lies spread like a cancer that has metastasized throughout the population, resulting in discrimination, persecution, and even murder.  We have been respectfully silent for a long time now.  And look where it’s gotten us.  Of course, where it’s gotten us is nothing compared to where it will take us if we remain silent.

Now, you might be saying, Isn’t it unfair to base a characterization of all Christians on the ugly remarks of a few TV hucksters?  To you they might be TV hucksters, but to Christians, these guys are (or, in the case of Falwell, were) leaders.  These men represent Christianity in the United States — throughout the world!  How do you think they got so rich and powerful?  Off of bake sales?  Kino winnings?  No.  They got rich off the loving, supportive and generous — not to mention tax-free — donations of their followers.

If these men do not represent the thoughts and feelings of Christians everywhere, then when they make these appallingly hateful and lunatic statements, where is the outrage of Christians who don’t want to be represented by them?  Why haven’t throngs of Christians denounced them?  Why hasn’t the money stopped flooding in?  Why haven’t their television ratings plummeted?

That hasn’t happened because these men and others like them do represent the thoughts and feelings of Christians everywhere.  And we are supposed to say nothing about it.  We have been convinced that it is somehow wrong to criticize this because faith and belief are such sacred things.  And if we do criticize it, then the Christians cry persecution.

Try having a conversation with a Christian about the words of Falwell or Robertson or any of the other tyrannical, homophobic, mysoginistic, hatemongering greedbeasts who represent them.  The Christian will always inject his BUT into the conversation.  Christians have a lot of very big BUTS and they use them as dividing lines.  Before the BUT, you will be told what the Christian thinks you want to hear in an effort to soften you up and get comfy with you, to make you think you’re sympatico.  Then after the BUT, the Christian will tell you exactly what he thinks.  The latter always completely contradicts the former.  It goes something like this:

“I certainly don’t agree with Pat Robertson about the earthquake in Haiti and I think it was wrong of him to say that.  BUT.  He has every right to say it because the Constitution guarantees it, and after all, Robertson has sent a lot of food and money to Haiti to help those poor people.  What have you done for them?  And when you think about it, he’s not too far off the mark.  I mean, historically, he’s right, isn’t he?  Where does voodoo come from?  Haiti!  And that’s Satanic!  I think you just have a problem with religion, that’s all.  I don’t know what’s made you so bitter, but you shouldn’t try to impose your angry personal feelings about religion on others.  Christian-bashing is prejudicial, but these days, Christians are the only people it’s okay to hate in America, and I think it’s terrible.  A person’s religious beliefs are personal and deeply felt and you should show them respect.  Why don’t you focus on all the good things Pat Robertson has done instead of just pointing out his mistakes?”

Good things?  How many good things can possibly be done by someone who says the things Pat Robertson says?  And on the outside chance that he is doing something good while hating women and homosexuals and everybody who isn’t a Christian and drawing on his formidable resources to limit or even abolish the rights of those people, does it really matter?

And there’s that word “respect” again.  We are told, over and over, that we owe our respect to the religious.  But how respectful are they?  Do you see any respect for fellow human beings in the quotes from Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson?  Was Robertson being respectful of others when, on January 14, 1991, he said on his TV show:

“You say you’re supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing.  Nonsense.  I don’t have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist.  I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don’t have to be nice to them.”

Was Jerry Falwell being respectful when he wrote in his book Listen, America!:

“The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief.  They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior.”

Are these people who have respect for others?  If the word “respect” can be defined as “bigotry and hatred shown to all who do not conform to your beliefs,” then yes, they are abundantly respectful!  But what dictionary gives that as the definition of the word?  In the above quotes, both Robertson and Falwell were talking about other religions!  If they don’t show cowering respect for the religious beliefs of others, then why the hell should anyone else?

Respect is a two-way street and it needs to be earned in both directions.  I don’t know about you, but I refuse to show respect for people who speak, write, support or believe the words spoken by these men, or any other words like them.

Christians are quite convinced that they are being persecuted at every turn.  Here’s Pat Robertson again, being interviewed by Molly Ivins in 1993:

“Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians.  It’s no different.  It is the same thing.  It is happening all over again.  It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians.  Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today.  More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.”

Now, you know as well as I do that Christians in America are not being rounded up and ushered into concentration camps.  No one is giving them blankets infected with smallpox.  They are not being tortured and slaughtered.  They are not even being abused or discriminated against.  In fact, every right they have ever had in the United States remains untouched and fully intact — they just want to have more rights while others have fewer.  If anyone is persecuting anyone, I think the above quotes from Robertson make it quite clear as to who is being victimized by whom.  He says women are to be subjugated and they are to like it; he says feminists and lesbians are child killing witches; he says homosexuals are Satanists and child predators and if we treat them like human beings, horrible natural disasters will result; he says the Constitution is for Christians only, that only Christians are capable of properly running the country, and everyone else is anti-American.  And yet he claims that he and his fellow Christians are the ones being persecuted?

Come on, people — did we just fall off the idiot truck yesterday?

Robertson’s claim that Christians are being persecuted in America is, quite frankly, a bald-faced lie.  But it’s a lie told often, and it’s catching on.  And it’s not the only lie — there’s also the lie that America’s founders were all devout Christians, that America is a Christian nation, founded by Christians, for Christians.  These lies, too — despite all the proof available to refute them — continue to be repeated, and they, too, are catching on with an increasingly distracted public that is sadly ignorant of its nation’s history.

Joseph Goebbels, who knew a thing or two about influencing the masses, said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

Pat Robertson?  Meet Joseph Goebbels.  Oh, I’m sorry — you’ve already met?  Great!  Then I’ll leave you two alone so you can catch up.

Now, you might be saying, Sure, they’re nuts, but they have every right to believe whatever they want to believe.  They’re harmless.  Just ignore them.

Harmless?  Just ignore them?  Really?

While interviewing syndicated columnist Joel Mowbray, author of Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Endangers National Security, Robertson said:

“I read your book.  When you (the reader) get through, you say, ‘If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that’s the answer.’  I mean, you get through this, and you say, ‘We’ve got to blow that thing up.’”

Foggy Bottom is a Washington, D.C. neighborhood where the United States Department of State is located.  The term “Foggy Bottom” is frequently used to refer to the State Department.  So let me make sure this is clear –- in the above statement, Pat Robertson, on national television, advocated the destruction of the United States Department of State with a “nuclear device.”  If you or I did that, we would, at the very least, be on a watch list so fast that all the Dramamine in the world wouldn’t keep us from puking.  But Pat Robertson is a man of god, right?  He represents the biggest religion in the United States, so to criticize this remark would disrespect his religious beliefs and offend Christians throughout the country.  And we just can’t do that.  Right?

On his TV show, Robertson once said the following about Islam:

“I want to say it again and again and again:  Islam is not a religion, it’s a political system meant on — bent on world domination, not a religion.  It masquerades as a religion, but the religion covers a worldwide attempt to exercise power and to subjugate the world into their way of thinking.”

Now read the following Pat Robertson quotes and tell me — doesn’t his description of Islam above apply just as accurately to his description of Christianity in America?

“Ladies and gentlemen, I want to say this very clearly.  If the people of the United States — all across America, in their churches and in their civic groups and in their legislatures — decide that they’re not going to allow the Supreme Court to dominate their lives in the fashion that it has been in this nation, the Supreme Court does not have the power to change that.  They are not going to be able to overturn the will of a hundred million American people.  And I think the time has come that we throw off the shackles of this dictatorship that’s been imposed upon us.  We had a war in 1776 that set us free from the shackles of the arbitrary rule of the British crown … And I think the time has come that we do that.”
– The 700 Club, quoted in Conrad Goeringer’s article “A Not-So-Modest Proposal – Post the Commandments, Spare Not the Rod”

“We have enough votes to run the country.  And when the people say, ‘We’ve had enough,’ we are going to take over.”
– in a speech given to the April, 1980 “Washington for Jesus” rally

“We at the Christian Coalition are raising an army who cares.  We are training people to be effective — to be elected to school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, and to key positions in political parties. … By the end of this decade, if we work and give and organize and train, the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political organization in America.”
– a July 4, 1991, fundraising letter

These are not the words of a man who wants to spread the love of Jesus Christ.  These are the words of a man whose religion is nothing more than a disguise for a political system bent on dominating and subjugating others.  These are the words of a revolutionary who wants to overthrow a free and secular nation, abolish its Constitution, and establish a theocracy.  These are words of sedition.

But we can’t criticize these words because they wear the sacred cloaks of religion?  We aren’t allowed to stand up and say, This is wrong!  This is anti-American! because it might offend the faithful believer in the exercise of his constitutional freedom of religion?

Well, I don’t know about you, but I call bullshit on that.

The same Constitution that gives these people the right to say these horrible, hateful things also gives everyone the right to denounce and condemn those things.

But there’s that unwritten law, that unspoken agreement that we won’t say anything negative — anything at all — about the sacred, constitutionally protected religious beliefs of others.  We are to respect it!

You don’t want to offend anyone?  You don’t want to make waves?  You don’t want to exercise your constitutional right of free speech?  Fine.  Then don’t complain when, someday in the not too distant future, the government tithes you as well as taxes you.  Don’t come whining to me when prayer in schools becomes mandatory and your kids come home from school to watch reruns of The Flintstones because their science teacher says it’s a documentary and it’s part of a homework assignment.  You’ll have no room to gripe when your favorite sex act becomes illegal because it offends god.

Because that is what these people want.

Silence may be golden, but in this case it’s deadly.  Remember what Jefferson said about the priest being “hostile to liberty” and always being “in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”  And remember what he said about ridicule being “the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions” and the only way to preserve “the purity of religion.”  If Jefferson were somehow able to rise from the grave and see how “free argument, raillery and even ridicule” regarding religion have been smothered into silence, and see how severely religion has been allowed to encroach on the freedoms of this secular nation, he would simply drop dead and have to be buried again.

The silence is being broken finally, thanks to the work and encouragement of great writers and thinkers like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and others.  But it’s happening too slowly.  America is experiencing trying times right now — economically, socially and politically.  Times like these make any country vulnerable to drastic change — often not for the better.  Times like these are often irresistible to those who want to dominate and subjugate, especially when the people being dominated have been convinced that it’s wrong to speak out and resist the very tools those dominators use to achieve their goals.  We can’t afford to be silent right now.

Speak up.  It’s your Constitution, too.

On April 27, I posted an article on this blog titled “It Kinda Sorta Maybe Could Be … Noah’s Ark,” about a group of “evangelical archaeologists” from Noah’s Ark Ministries finding what they believed to be the remains of the big biblical boat in Turkey.  I am deeply and profoundly unsurprised to announce that they were wrong.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, a former member of the Chinese-led team, evangelical Christian archaeologist Dr. Randall Price, said, “If the world wants to think this is a wonderful discovery, that’s fine.  My problem is that, in the end, proper analysis may show this to be a hoax and negatively reflect how gullible Christians can be.”  From the Monitor:

Dr. Price, who is director of the Center for Judaic Studies at the conservative Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., was the archaeologist on the Chinese-led team in 2008 when this alleged discovery was first made. He says he has “difficulties with a number of issues related to the evidence at hand.”

Price declined to elaborate. However, a leaked email from Price – which he confirms that he wrote – shows that he has reason to believe that a group of local Kurdish men trucked wood up to the mountain and staged an elaborate hoax for the Chinese team.

A group of Kurdish workers “are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. … During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film,” Price writes in the email.

Boy oh boy.  When somebody from Liberty University says your ark is a hoax, you’re sunk.

On his blog Pharyngula, biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris, PZ Myers wrote, “You can hardly blame the Turks around Ararat. There’s a lot of money being poured into the local economy from these numerous creationist expeditions.  It only makes sense to salt a few sites with chunks of wood.”

This is far from the first claim that Noah’s ark has been found, and it’s doubtful that it will be the last.  The search for the big boat is so neverending that a community of ark-search enthusiasts has grown around it, not unlike UFO enthusiasts who gather to rehash stories of Roswell and alien abductions.  Some searches seem to crumble into nothing while others are revealed as deliberate hoaxes.  In an article titled “Sun Goes Down in Flames: The Jammal Ark Hoax” in volume 2, number 3 of Skeptic magazine, Jim Lippard tells the long, involved and wildly entertaining story of how CBS — the television network — was duped into airing a “documentary” called The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark from Sun Pictures International.  You might remember Sun Pictures — they were responsible for such “documentaries” as Ghosts from the Dead, The Lincoln Conspiracy, The Bermuda Triangle, and one about Bigfoot called The Mysterious Monster, as well as the 1980 feature film about a government conspiracy involving space aliens, Hangar 18.

The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark featured a segment in which a man named George Jammal spoke of visiting the ark on Mt. Ararat and showed a piece of wood taken from the structure.  Had Sun Pictures done any research on Jammal, they would’ve found that others in the ark-search community doubted his story from the beginning.  But they did not.  The “documentary” presented Jammal’s story as fact, and during a “dramatization” of his visit to the ark’s resting place, the narrator claimed, “Samples of the wood taken from the vessel have been dated to the time when the Bible indicates a worldwide flood occurred.”  But in fact, the wood hadn’t even been tested.  Jammal later admitted his story and the wood were a hoax.  Even worse, Jammal wasn’t the only person featured in the “documentary” whose story was questionable.

Sun Pictures claimed that it presented all available information and did not have an opinion about the ark one way or the other.  But as Lippard points out, that clashes with the very title — The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark — which claims not only that the ark exists, but has been discovered.  So Sun did have an opinion from the outset.  Also damaging Sun’s credibility was the background of its chief researcher, David Balsiger.  In his article, Lippard points out that Balsiger –

has a past history of involvement with Christian hoaxes.  During the early seventies, Balsiger wrote both books and newsletter articles for the Christian publisher Logos International. He ghost authored or co-authored a number of “autobiographical” books giving Christian testimonies, including Fernand Navarra’s Noah’s Ark: I Touched It, self-proclaimed former Satanist turned Christian comedian Mike Warnke’s The Satan Seller, and faith healer Morris Cerullo’s The Back Side of Satan.  Warnke’s story was exposed as a hoax in a lengthy article in the Christian magazine Cornerstone in 1992, though Balsiger continues to defend it.  Cerullo, for whom both Balsiger and Warnke worked prior to the formation of Warnke’s own ministry, has come under heavy fire from Christian critics for his incredible claims (e.g., that he was taken from an orphanage by angels and transported to heaven for a face-to-face meeting with god) and unorthodox theology.  Logos International, which is no longer in business, also published a hoaxed biography of a former rabbi turned Christian and a book which initiated the “urban legend” about NASA computers discovering a “missing day ” and proving the biblical account of Joshua making the sun stand still.

Noah’s Ark, Satanists, faith healers, missing days … what’s with all this Christian hoaxing?  To hear them talk, they have the only truth.  Everyone else, it seems, is wrong — the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the New Agers, the Scientologists, the scientists, the atheists, the Democrats, the poor people of Haiti who brought that terrible earthquake down on their own heads, the entire population of San Francisco, to name just a few.  The Christians possess the One and Only Absolute Truth of salvation through their lord and savior Jesus Christ.

So if it’s so true, why all the hoaxing?

Perhaps we can uncover some explanation for that by going to the source, the bible, where we find the story of Noah and the ark.

According to the Book of Genesis, god was startled to discover that humankind had become deeply wicked.  Apparently he hadn’t been keeping track.  Perhaps he’d been busy with other things and we’d gotten naughty while he wasn’t paying attention.  No particular offenses are specified, but we’re told that humanity was just really, really, really not good.  God decided he was sorry he’d created the damned things and, not in a very good mood, decided to wipe them off the face of the earth.  But there was one man god liked.  His name was Noah.  He was 600 years old.

Wait, wait — where are you going?  I’m not making this up as I go along.  That’s what the book says — that he was 600 years old.  Really!

So, instead of just blinking his eyes or twitching his nose and making the nasty human race disappear from the earth, god decided to send a flood to wipe out everyone and everything he’d spent six whole days out of his busy schedule creating.  He told this 600 year old man to build a gigantic boat in which he could save a bunch of animals from the flood.

Now, there seems to be some confusion in the infallible revealed word of god as to god’s instructions to Noah regarding the animals.  According to Genesis 6:19, god told Noah, “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.”  However, according to Genesis 7:2 and 3, god said, “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.  Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. ”  Now, many bible believers explain that what god really meant in this passage was that Noah was to take seven pairs of animals — that way, it matches up with the verse in chapter six.  Of course, the only problem with that explanation is that, according to the book, god didn’t say seven pairs, he just said seven.  Maybe it was a clerical error — even god might have trouble getting good help.

So, following god’s instructions, this single solitary man — who, remember, was 600 years old — built this massive boat big enough to hold two or seven — depending on which verse in Genesis you prefer (seven pairs if you believe the believers) — of every species of animal on the planet.  And he built it out of cypress wood and pitch.  Did I mention that he did this by himself?

Once the ark was built, god sent all the animals to Noah.  The bible does not describe how god got animals from other continents on the planet to congregate around Noah and his big boat, but I’m sure there’s a perfectly rational explanation for the whole thing that god, in his infinite and infallible wisdom, has chosen not to share.  Then, Noah and his wife, his three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives, entered the ark.

A week later — “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month,” according to Genesis 7:11 — water exploded from under the ground and it began to rain, and the entire planet, including all of its mountains, was submerged.  It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and the earth remained flooded for 150 days because god wanted to make sure that everything was damned good and dead.  “And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth,” according to Genesis 8:13, and Noah and his family and all of the animals came out of the ark and completely repopulated the entire globe.

Yes, that’s right.  Noah — who was 600 years old — and his wife — who I’m guessing was no debutante — and their three sons and their wives — how young could they be if Dad was 600? — repopulated the whole planet all by themselves.

Oh, and all of the earth’s wildlife was located in one spot.

That’s the story of Noah and the ark.

But, Ray, you say, how can anyone take that story as a literal record of an actual event? How is it possible that anyone living today, knowing what we now know about the earth and water and all the laws of science, could believe to be true such an obvious myth?

Well, they do.  I certainly did.  For a while, anyway.  It was early in my life, somewhere in that age range between, “Of course eight flying reindeer can get Santa Claus to every single house on the planet in one night,” and, “Why wouldn’t the Easter Bunny deliver colored hardboiled eggs?”  As I got older, though, I began to have my doubts.  These doubts were expressed by a still, small voice somewhere in the back of my mind.  The adult figures of authority in my life — every last one of them Seventh-day Adventists — identified the still, small voice as the holy spirit trying to guide me and keep me on the path to the truth.  But I was pretty sure the holy spirit wouldn’t say the things that were being said by the still, small voice in the back of my mind.  Things like, “Do you believe this shit they’re saying?” and, “Are these people out of their fucking minds?”

Unfortunately, when it was explained to me that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny didn’t really exist, Noah and the ark — and Moses parting the Red Sea and god poofing the earth into existence by magic and Joshua stopping the sun as it revolved around the earth and a virgin giving birth and a dead man rising from his grave — were not included in that explanation.  All of those things, I was told, really did happen and any information to the contrary came directly from the devil himself.  And everyone in my life — all my friends, all their parents, all the adults, and even people who weren’t Sadventists — backed that up.  So when those things just didn’t seem to make sense to me and that still, small voice in the back of my mind started saying things like, “You’ve gotta be fucking kidding me,” it conflicted with what I perceived to be — what I had been taught was — reality and I thought the fault was with me.  In fact, my questions and doubt were specifically identified by all those around me as some kind of dysfunction, a common ailment among Christians known as “the work of the devil.”

As I got older, I found that even outside the very tightknit world of Sadventism, people believed these stories to be literal truth.  It wasn’t just people in my own church who accepted these things as reality — it seemed to be almost everyone.  So even when I reached and passed the age when I should have known better, my questions had been browbeaten into silence and I had been conditioned to believe the cognitive dissonance in my life was a shameful dysfunction of mine.

And that, my friends, is how it happens.

Now, looking back on those years, I recognize that dysfunction as rational thought, which was deliberately strangled in me.  At no point was I given a choice.  No one said to me, “Would you like to believe that these colorful, exciting stories are absolutely true and happened exactly as described in the bible, or would you prefer to think rationally?”  I wasn’t offered the choice between blind belief and rational thought, and as a result, I had no idea there was a difference.   My rational thinking was stamped out like a lit cigarette.  And it continues to be stamped out all around us, every day, in homes and churches and private schools — all too often (despite that pesky United States Constitution), even in public schools — so that today, in the year 2010, there are people out there searching for Noah’s ark … and the ark of the covenant, and the spear that pierced Jesus’s side, and maybe even the holy grail of “evangelical archaeologists” — a fossil of a person riding a dinosaur!  Yabba dabba doo!

So, back to my question:  Why the deception?  Well, for one thing, when the story you want to convince people is true is the story of Noah’s ark, you pretty much have no choice but to rely on hoaxes, do you?  But I think there are primarily two reasons for the deception.

First of all, when the belief system that informs your entire life requires you to believe something like the story of Noah’s ark — to accept it as fact — life is much easier when everyone else accepts it as fact, too.  Unfortunately for you, there is an expanding group of people who refuse to accept such stories as true.  They call the bible mythology — or worse, superstition.  Clearly, these people are thinking too much.  They are afflicted with that disorder that has reached epic proportions throughout the world — “the work of the devil” (aka rational thought).  They are in danger of losing eternal life.  Somehow, this must be remedied.  If they can be made to believe one of the stories of the bible is true, then perhaps they will reconsider all of them.  If they were to believe that Noah’s ark had been found, they might be saved.  Sure, a hoax would be dishonest — but it would be for a noble purpose.  Besides, Jesus will forgive you.  That’s his job.

That reason, of course, gives them the benefit of the doubt and assumes that they are at least somewhat sincere.

The other reason?  What else.  Money!  Finding Noah’s ark — or being a former Satanist, or being a faith healer — is the kind of thing that sells books and videos and fills auditorium seats with the butts of Christians eager to believe … and eager to give till it hurts when the plate is passed.

So this time, in the case of the “ark” discovered in Turkey by Noah’s Ark Ministries, it was the Christians being hoaxed, but for the usual reason — money.

But they’re still looking.  And there are plenty of people behind them.  According to a February 16, 2004, Washington Times article, an ABC News poll conducted among 1,011 adults with a margin of error of 3 percentage points found that Americans, as we know all too well, take bible stories very seriously:

61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible’s book of Genesis is “literally true” rather than a story meant as a “lesson.”  Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors.

As Myers wrote, there are enough Christians spending a lot of money in their search for the ark for the locals to go to the trouble of devising hoaxes to keep them coming.  And spending … and spending … and spending.  All of this money comes from the owners of those Christian butts that fill those seats to hear the promise of making this bible story a reality.  A lot of them are people who (as I once was) are not even aware of the fact that they have a choice between blind belief and rational thought — and worse, don’t even know the difference between the two.

I find this need for proof confusing and, at times, infuriating.  Have a long enough discussion with any Christian about his beliefs and at some point, he will say, “I don’t have to provide proof of anything to you because this is my faith, and faith doesn’t need proof.”  Fine.  I can buy that.  But this same Christian will seize upon the smallest shred of apparent evidence to prove that his faith is fact.  That kind of faith is not very strong.  Or perhaps it’s only faith when his back is against the wall in a conversation in which he hasn’t a leg to stand on.  The rest of the time, however, it’s fact, and all he needs is one little bit of “proof” so that everyone else will see that it’s fact, too.  After all, the only way to deal with those party-pooping nonbelievers is to convince them your faith is fact with proof because … well, because you just can’t burn them at the stake anymore.

Not right now, anyway.  But give them time.

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.

After much consideration about the upcoming “Draw Muhammad Day” tomorrow, I have decided to join others like Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta, Vjack from Atheist Revolution, NoGodBlog and many others and post an invitation for those of you who wish to participate.

This action is not merely to rile up and piss off peace-loving Muslims. This is to stand up to those who are attempting to create a global theocracy and do not respect freedom of speech and expression except when it comes to their violent and oftentimes lethal public protests against any criticism of their religion and beliefs.

As for the risk of violent response? Here is a quote from NoGodBlog:

If it makes Muslims uncomfortable, maybe they should consider why they pray to a god that can’t even stomach being drawn, let alone being criticized. Maybe they should consider how barbaric it is that everyone taking part in Draw Muhammad Day is endangering lives, and risking terrorism. Maybe they should consider, just for a moment, that their religion is indeed primitive.

Definitely not a religion of peace if their response is going to be one of death threats and violence.

If we respect their beliefs and shut up like they want everyone in the world to do, then we are giving in. We may as well just shut down our websites, go back in the atheist closet and just let them have their way. And it won’t stop with just curtailing our freedom of speech. They will want to take more, and more of our freedoms away till Sharia Law rules the planet. We would not tolerate this from the Christians or any other religion. But because fundamentalist Islam threatens us with violent acts, many are too afraid to criticize them at all anymore. Like in the video of Vilks’university lecture being shut down in Sweden. If we keep giving in what will happen to our world?

There are many who truly intend to make this whole world a theocracy, and those who wish to make friends with those who would not lift a finger to stop it are merely helping the fundamentalists’ cause. As we saw on South Park, and heard from my warm-and-fuzzy friends, it appears some wish us to roll over and let them win. So we can’t mention Muhammad or show a drawing without fear — does anyone really think it ends there?

Of course it won’t. Like with the fundamentalist Christians, they want it all their way.

Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks, who sparked controversy by drawing Prophet Mohammed with the body of a dog, was physically attacked on Tuesday while giving a lecture at the university of Uppsala, north of the Stockholm.

“The man was sat in the first row and suddenly he rushed at me. He punched me in the head and I lost my glasses,” said Vilks, adding that at the very most he was “a little bruised”.

The Muslims who showed up to protest knew ahead of time what the lecture was going to be about. Why attend if you know that what is going to be shown will offend you? Because, they don’t want anyone insulting their imaginary friend. Nevermind that Vilks spent time making fun of other religions. That does not matter to the protesters, because they believe that Islam is the only “true beliefs” and if no one else protests so violently, well…that just proves to them that Christianity, Buddhism, and all other religions are untrue but Mohammad and Islam are true and according to extremist Muslims, the right to free speech does not apply to Islam.

I was a bit frustrated to see Swedish non-Muslims just sit there there doing nothing at all during the whole ordeal. No one stood up in defense of free speech. It’s like our friend Pat Condell says, people are afraid to stand up to Muslims because of the risk of violent retaliation. The actions against Vilks shows that the fear is not unjustified. Because of the violent threats by Muslim extremists (which are carried out all too often), groups and organizations choose to just back down and let them have their way.

For Mr. Vilks, who has booby-trapped his own house and says he sleeps with an ax beside his bed, the right to unfettered speech – regardless of whether it offends Muslims – is a point of principle. “This must be carried through. You cannot allow it to be stopped,” he told the Associated Press, saying he wouldn’t hesitate to give the address again.

But the university apparently disagrees. Officials said they would “not likely” invite Vilks again because of the incident. In some quarters, the university’s reponse is adding to concerns that violence and threats from some members of the Muslim community are effectively muzzling free speech.

Last month, Comedy Central edited a “South Park” episode showing Mohammed in a bear suit in response to veiled threats by a New York-based Muslim group.

Earlier this year, the Metropolitan Museum of Art pulled a collection of art of Mohammed to avoid offending Muslims, who believe that the depiction of any of the prophets is a form of idolatry.

And Brandeis University professor Jytte Klausen says that Yale University Press prohibited her from using several 2005 Danish newspaper caricatures depicting Mohammed with a bomb on his head in her book “The Cartoons That Shook the World.”

“When it comes to depicting the Prophet, this has nothing to do with social issues or integration,” says Professor Klausen. “This is about a political movement by sectarian groups where [depicting Mohammed] has now become a primary trigger for political contention. The university pretty much told [Vilks] to shut up and go talk somewhere else, and I find that reaction very dangerous and problematic. It means that the extremists have achieved what they wanted.”

Here is the video of what happened after the attack on Vilks:

LOL. An update to the post “Slutty Women Rockin the world

“

It seems like this just begs for us to promote something this nice and wholesome. Boobquake is slated to sart on Monday April 26. I personally hope it becomes a tradition.

Here’s the background: A Purdue University student is asking women around the world Monday to show a little cleavage, or some short shorts, as a humorous test to disprove an Iranian cleric’s theory that immodest dress has the power to make the Earth shake.

The article is here as well as other headlines and articles from around the world.

So be careful on monday everyone. Those immodest women are going to be out tempting us all and trying to shake the earth.

PSA over.