Well it's Christmas, and this IS the Immoral Minority, so let's stick a pin in the virgin birth story shall we?

Now I am sure that I have already covered this in the past, but I recently stumbled across an interview on Raw Story of Dr. Tony Nugent, scholar of world religions, and a symbologist.

Oh, and he is also an ordained  Presbyterian minister.

And I really liked his no BS explanation for why so many ignoramuses stick giant Nativity scenes on their lawns at Christmas.

On why we think Mary was a virgin:

The familiar Christmas story, including the virgin conception and birth of Jesus, is found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Scholars have pointed out that these stories are somewhat disconnected from other parts of these Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. In fact, by the time he is a young boy in the temple, Jesus’s parents seem to have forgotten the virgin birth. They act surprised by his odd behavior. There is never any other mention in the New Testament of these incredible events! These stories seem to be an afterthought, written later than the rest of the gospels that contain them. To make matters more interesting, the stories themselves have inconsistencies and ambiguities – contradictory genealogies, for example. Our Christmas story (singular) is actually a composite. 

Or consider the idea that Mary is a virgin. The Greek writer of Matthew quotes Isaiah as saying: “a parthenos shall conceive and bear a child.” The Hebrew word in Isaiah is “almah,” which means simply “young woman.” But the Greek word parthenos can mean either a virgin or a young woman, and it got translated as “virgin.” Modern Bible translations have corrected this, but it is a central part of the Christmas story.

You know for the "inerrant word of God" this book is certainly full of historical inaccuracies, and mistranslations. 

So did early Christians believe in the virgin birth?

Jewish Christians, the first Christians, didn’t believe in the virgin birth. They believed that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Part of their Christology was “adoptionism”–they thought Jesus was adopted as the unique son of God at some time later in life. There were disagreements about when – Mark suggests the baptism, Paul suggests the resurrection. 

Over time, gentile Christianity replaced Jewish Christianity. There were Jewish-Roman Wars. The Jewish Christians were marginalized and oppressed. The Gentile branch became dominant. Eventually we get the gospel of John which pushes the sonship of Jesus back to the beginning of time. This writer is at the other end of the spectrum from the Jewish Christians.

So apparently all of the relatively rational early Christians were told to shut up, and that left the less than rational ones to interpret the story of Jesus. Well that figures.

So just how should we view stories in the Bible? 

We need to be able to appreciate these stories as myths, rather than literal histories. When you understand where they come from, then you can understand their spiritual significance for the writers and for us.

Well good then I have been doing it right since I was just a boy.

I apologize if this interferes with your ability to enjoy the holidays. But take heart!

I mean sure the Biblical stories about Jesus are complete horse pucky, but at least we know Santa Claus is real. Right?

Right?

Bishop of Shrewsbury calls the John Lennon song Imagine "heart chilling."

Courtesy of the Catholic Herald: 

The Bishop of Shrewsbury has described the John Lennon song Imagine as “heart-chilling” in a Christmas homily. 

Reflecting on this year’s Christmas adverts which focus on the First World War, Bishop Mark Davies will say in a homily on Christmas Day: “The events of Christmas 1914 give the lie to the lazily repeated assertion that ‘religion is the cause of wars’. John Lennon would give voice to this ill-founded belief in the lyrics of his song Imagine. This becomes a heart-chilling vision in which Lennon imagines a world with no hope of heaven and no fear of hell. And he adds, ‘no religion too’. Only then, he suggests will ‘all the people’ be ‘living life in peace.’” 

The bishop will continue: “Yet the fact is, the wars of the century past, bringing with them atrocities and destruction on a scale never seen before, were largely inspired by secularist and, indeed, openly anti-Christian ideologies. In reality, it is human sin which lies at the root cause of war. Conflicts, writes St James, arise within the human heart wherever ‘bitter jealousy and selfish ambition’ are found (James 3: 14). Tonight we declare that Christ came to ‘save us from our sins’, to enable us to give glory to God and to bring peace amongst men. Christ calls all who would follow Him to have, as we have just heard in St Paul’s words: ‘no ambition except to do good’ (Titus 2:14).”

That last part is complete bullshit. In fact most wars were either inspired by religious differences, ideological differences, or strategic power grabs.

And the word "sin" is a bullshit primitive definition to explain complicated human behaviors that too many people lack the intellect or patience to understand completley.

As for the John Lennon, well I will take his beautiful song about hope and peace over the Catholic church's doctrine of shame, oppression, and misogyny any day of the week.

For those on Fox News trying to convince us that the idea of separation of church and state is a recent invention, yeah not so much.

As you can see there is no date on the comic to tell us when it was printed, however a quick Google search of the cartoonist Watson Heston tells us that he died in 1905.

So that should provide insight into how long this debate has been raging.

Especially considering the fact that it was not until 1870 that all of the states at that time even had public schools.

If we are to continue to provide our students with a well rounded education job one should be keeping religion as far away from our schools as humanly possible.

Former teacher wins 1.9 million is damages after Catholic Diocese fires her for using in vitro fertilization in an attempt to get pregnant.

Courtesy of The Journal Gazette: 

Almost every single thing for which Emily Herx asked the jury, she received. 

Nearly $2 million in damages, and vindication, after the jury ruled that the Catholic Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend discriminated against the former language arts teacher at St. Vincent de Paul Catholic School when they fired her for undergoing in vitro fertilization. 

The verdict came after about 51/2 hours of deliberation Friday afternoon, capping off a four-day jury trial before U.S. District Judge Robert Miller Jr. in the expansive federal courthouse just a few blocks from the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, the center of the diocese. 

As she waited for the jury to come in, Herx sat ramrod straight in her chair at the table next to her attorney, Kathleen DeLaney, her face anything but calm as she clearly tried to control her breathing and anxiety. 

Throughout the trial, she heard herself characterized by the defense as a potential drug abuser, an emotional basket case and as someone who committed a sin so grave and immoral that no circumstances could justify it. 

But after the verdict was read, she seemed to uncoil with relief, crying and holding onto DeLaney in a long and tearful embrace.

Whenever I hear people defending the church's anti-abortion stance it makes me shake my head.

The church is not so much interested in protecting unborn babies as they are in controlling women's reproductive organs.

All this woman was trying to do is exactly what the church claims to support. And that is to give birth to a child.

But because the woman, the married woman, could not conceive naturally, and turned to science instead of accepting God's will, she was not only condemned by the church but they took away her livelihood as well.

Is the slow motion death of religion in America more the fault of the Republicans than it is the fault of outspoken Atheists? Could be.

As all of you know the only thing that fascinates me more than politics is religion. And I spend an inordinate amount of time reading about its origins, evolution, and its decreasing popularity in America, and increasing popularity in other parts of the world.

Seriously I could write, debate, and learn more about it every day and not grow bored of the subject.

So when I happened upon this article from Salon I had to share it.

It sets out to essentially understand what is behind the increase secularization in America today.

It does discuss the Atheist movement led by Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and others, as well as the Catholic church scandals, the rise of the internet, and a few other contributing factors.

However the one that caught my eye was this one:

For starters, we can begin with the presence of the religious right, and the backlash it has engendered. Beginning in the 1980s, with the rise of such groups as the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, the closeness of conservative Republicanism with evangelical Christianity has been increasingly tight and publicly overt. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, more and more politicians on the right embraced the conservative Christian agenda, and more and more outspoken conservative Christians allied themselves with the Republican Party. Examples abound, from Michele Bachmann to Ann Coulter, from Mike Huckabee to Pat Robertson, and from Rick Santorum to James Dobson. With an emphasis on seeking to make abortion illegal, fighting against gay rights (particularly gay marriage), supporting prayer in schools, advocating “abstinence only” sex education, opposing stem cell research, curtailing welfare spending, supporting Israel, opposing gun control, and celebrating the war on terrorism, conservative Christians have found a warm welcome within the Republican Party, which has been clear about its openness to the conservative Christian agenda. This was most pronounced during the eight years that George W. Bush was in the White House. 

What all of this this has done is alienate a lot of left-leaning or politically moderate Americans from Christianity. Sociologists Michael Hout and Claude Fischer have published compelling research indicating that much of the growth of “nones” in America is largely attributable to a reaction against this increased, overt mixing of Christianity and conservative politics. The rise of irreligion has been partially related to the fact that lots of people who had weak or limited attachments to religion and were either moderate or liberal politically found themselves at odds with the conservative political agenda of the Christian right and thus reacted by severing their already somewhat weak attachment to religion. Or as sociologist Mark Chaves puts it, “After 1990 more people thought that saying you were religious was tantamount to saying you were a conservative Republican. So people who are not Republicans now are more likely to say that they have no religion.”

These are very good points that I agree with wholeheartedly. 

In fact, as I have shared many times before, the factors above have quite a lot to do with your ability to visit this blog today.

It was in response to that Republican branding, and the attempt to paint themselves as the moral superior of every other political group, that pissed your favorite Alaskan blogger off so much that he started channeling his frustration through a keyboard.

However as much as I agree with authors about how the Republican Religious Right poisoned the well, I still think that without the internet we would not be seeing the changes we are witnessing today.

Anybody care to disagree?

New poll shows that the more religious you are the more okay with torture you are. I know, right?

Courtesy of Libraland:  

One characteristic, above all else, defines the sociopath: an utter lack of guilt or remorse. One characteristic, above all else, defines Christianity: freedom from guilt and remorse. Christianity, as a rule, doesn't explicitly endorse the worst possible things a person can do. But it does forgive them, and that insidious negation of conscience is a quietly lethal thing. Anything's possible when you don't have to live with the guilt of doing it. And as one poll from NBC shows, even a group less trusted than rapists can be good, if there's no one around to take away the guilt of being bad. 

The poll comes from MSNBC's This Week in God, 12/20/14 edition. It was conducted in concert with MSNBC's friend in print, the Washington Post. First up, this question, with results sorted by race and religious affiliation, or lack thereof:

 The poll also asked the respondents if the CIA torture was justified. This how they answered in response to that question.

In the headline to this article over at Liberland was the word "shocking." However nothing about this shocks me.

The idea that people of faith are more moral or ethical is false, and one of the main reasons that I started The Immoral Minority in the first place.

Anytime any group claims to be the moral superior of others not in their group you can be dead certain that that is where you will find the most morally corrupt of them all.

Colorado state representative Gordon Klingenschmitt claims that people don't need no stinking Obamacare. Not when they have God as their heavenly physician.

Courtesy of Right Wing Watch:

Gordon Klingenschmitt is excited about a recent Fox News poll that claims that 58 percent of Americans want to repeal Obamacare, declaring on his "Pray In Jesus Name" program recently that people ought to be relying on God for their healthcare. 

Citing a passage from Exodus 15, Klingenschmitt asserted that God will protect people from disease so long as they obey His commands and said that Americans "ought to look to the Lord for our healthcare." 

"I personally prefer to look to almighty God as my healer and not to the government as a substitute god or substitute healer," he said, before praying that this nation would "repent of worshiping President Obama as if he is a god." 

Here is the video:

You know it sounds to me that God was only promising not to bring the same plagues upon his people that he unleashed on the Egyptians.

Which include water to blood, a butt load of frogs, gnats or lice, swarms of flies, sick cattle, boils, thunder and hail, locusts, darkness, and death of your firstborn.

Nowhere does it claim that you will be healed of cancer, heart disease, kidney failure, or any of the actual sicknesses that modern man faces today.

So WTF is this guy even talking about?

And don't even get me started on the fact that since the Egyptians never had Jews as slaves in the first place that this entire story is based on pure unadulterated horseshit.

Good job Colorado. 

Pat Robertson believes that gays will soon die out because they cannot reproduce. Not sure what is more troubling, his understanding of sexuality or of history.

Courtesy of New Now Next:  

The 700 Club televangelist took a call recently from woman complaining that her church forbids dating or marriage—that even showing interest in the opposite sex is a “sin.” 

Robertson told the woman to “run” from her church before everyone dies out. 

“You know, those who are homosexual will die out because they don’t reproduce. You have to have heterosexual sex to reproduce,” he opined. “Same thing with that church— it’s doomed, it’s going to die out because it’s the most nonsensical thing I’ve heard in a long time.”

While I agree with Robertson that this woman needs to leave her church immediately (Actually leaving ALL churches might not be a bad plan), his contention that homosexuality will die out because they cannot produce offspring together is truly ignorant.

As just about everybody EXCEPT Pat Robertson already knows straight parents produce gay children and have been doing so since the beginning of time.

In fact if Robertson were to open a book that does not begin with the words "In the beginning.." he might realize that teh gays have existed well before the establishment of Christianity, Judaism, or even monotheism.

In fact they are the one constant that ties ALL societies, ethnicities, and past civilizations together.

Suggesting that gay folks will soon die out is like suggesting that Pat Robertson will soon start saying things that are not incredibly stupid.

Not gonna happen.

Woman murders son because she believed it would be "better for him to go to heaven."

Courtesy of the New York Daily News:  

A Kansas mom stabbed and beat her son to death because she thought he'd be better off in heaven, police said. 

Lindsey Blansett was charged with first-degree murder after allegedly killing her 10-year-old son, Caleb, on Sunday, KAKE reported. 

Caleb's 9-year-old sister was home during the grisly attack, Wellington police said. 

The 33-year-old mom took a rock and a knife to her son's bedroom after he went to sleep Sunday, Sumner County Attorney Kerwin Spencer said in a court complaint. 

Earlier that evening, Blansett "decided his life would be full of suffering and pain and that it would be better for him to go to heaven" than to "face the world's problems," the complaint said. 

She allegedly hit him with the rock and then stabbed him in the chest. 

He died in his bedroom.

Years ago I was assigned to work with a boy who was actively trying to kill himself. A lot of troubled kids make these threats to get attention but this one was deadly serious.

The reason why is because life was too hard for him and his fundamentalist parents had taught him all his life that Heaven was this amazing place where all of his pain would be taken away and he would be happy forever.

We watched him around the clock for several weeks, and intervened during numerous attempts to take his own life. I personally had to unwrap another care coordinator's shoestrings from around his neck.

And during all of this protocol forbid us from criticizing his religion or from explaining to his young man that his parents were superstitious idiots. Essentially we simply had to avoid discussing his beliefs altogether and instead discuss with him all of the wonderful possibilities that he would miss if he took his life prematurely.

Today he is a grown man, with a job and a girlfriend. He is happy.

Don't ever tell me that religion cannot be incredibly destructive.

I have seen it myself.

Ohio Republican Governor forcing public schools to partner with faith based organizations in order to qualify for tax dollars set aside for mentoring program.

Courtesy of Cleveland.com:  

Gov. John Kasich's $10 million plan to bring mentors into Ohio's schools for students now has a surprise religious requirement – one that goes beyond what is spelled out in the legislation authorizing it. 

Any school district that wants a piece of that state money must partner with both a church and a business – or a faith-based organization and a non-profit set up by a business to do community service. 

No business and no faith-based partner means no state dollars. 

"You must include a faith-based partner," United Way of Greater Cleveland President Bill Kitson, told potential applicants at an information session the United Way hosted Thursday here in Cleveland. 

Asked why the governor is mixing religion with a state program - items usually required to be kept separate - Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols said: "The governor believes faith-based organizations play an important role in the lives of young people." 

And Kasich's recorded video welcoming the applicants made the importance he places on faith in this effort clear. 

"The Good Lord has a purpose for each and every one of them (students) and you're helping them to find it," Kasich said on the video.

Yes the Governor believes that "faith based organizations play an important role in the lives of young people" and that "the good lord has a purpose for each and every one of them" because he is an Evangelical. And Evangelicals simply cannot accept that others will be offended by the inclusion of religion into a public school that is supposed to serve students of all faiths, or not faiths.

That is why the separation of church and state is so vital. And why people like Governor Kasich refuse to accept that it even exists.

New report claims that Atheists are being targeted around the world for their lack of faith.

Courtesy of the Independent:  

Atheists and humanists are increasingly being targeted as distinct minorities in “hate campaigns” across the globe, according to a new report which found that religious and political leaders are ratcheting up rhetoric against those who believe there is no God. 

The report claims that the “hate speech” against atheists does not come exclusively from reactionary or radical religious leaders, but increasingly from political leaders, including heads of state. 

The Freedom of Thought report, published by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), states: “In 2014, in addition to laws such as those targeting ‘apostasy’ and ‘blasphemy’, we have seen a marked increase in specific targeting of ‘atheists’ and ‘humanism’ as such, using these terms in a broadly correct way (the users know what they are saying) but with intent clearly borne of ignorance or intolerance toward these groups.” 

The report singles out Najib Razak, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, who has called “humanism and secularism as well as liberalism” a “deviant” threat to Islam and the state. In a speech to the Quran Recital Assembly Razak said: “We will not tolerate any demands or right to apostasy by Muslims.” 

Saudi Arabia is criticised for a new law equating “atheism” with “terrorism”. The very first article of the kingdom’s new terror regulations banned: “Calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion”. 

Secular critics of Egypt’s president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the general who toppled Islamist President Mohamed Mursi, have found themselves targeted, through what the report calls “an organized backlash against young atheists”.

The report seems to mainly focus on predominantly Muslim countries, but of course Atheists are also oppressed and vilified here in the United States. And in our not to distant past we were even hung as witches or tortured for daring to have freedom of thought.

I often hear the Christians in this country complaining about their people being persecuted for their religion. But if they want to experience real persecution and oppression around the world, try telling people you are an Atheist.

Why I am not going to see the new Ridley Scott movie and you shouldn't either.

Look at that!

Doesn't that look good?

Yeah I think so too. I love going to the movies and that looks right up my alley.

I mean I love the director Ridley Scott, I am a big Christian Bale fan, and big extravagant films like this are why I go to the movies.

Except I am not going to see it. Ever!

Why you may ask?

Because it is all bullshit that perpetuates a myth that is incredibly destructive and vilifies an entire nation even though there is absolutely NO evidence to support it.

Don't believe me? Here you go:

It turns out that there is no archaeological evidence of any kind relating to a separate settlement of religious people in Egypt during that time. There is also no evidence of any kind relating to a mass migration across the Sinai Peninsula. 

If things did indeed happen as it says in the Bible (and the Torah), there would have to be some archaeological evidence. But there is none. 

Further, there is no evidence of any kind that Egypt even used slaves, and certainly no evidence that they enslaved an entire nation. The workers that built the pyramids are known to be well payed Egyptians. The pyramids weren’t even built in the right time period, being 800 to 2,000 years older than the supposed “Exodus”. 

The same techniques used to track the migration patterns of ancient humans by examining DNA also show that there was absolutely no procreation between ancient Egyptians and ancient Israelites during the time that the story was supposed to have taken place. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if an entire nation was enslaved for hundreds of years, surely there would have been some inter-breeding. 

In short, this story never happened. 

There is more here and here if you need further convincing. 

Last year I was talked into going to see the movie Noah, starring Russell Crow, by my daughter.

However halfway through I thought "Well this is just religious bullshit. And by purchasing a ticket I am financially supporting this religious bullshit and probably helping to convince movie makers to create more of this religious bullshit."

It actually bothered me for days afterward, and even though I tried to rationalize it by reminding myself that I also watched the movie Troy, which is also based on mythologies, I still couldn't do it.

You see it is easy to dismiss a craptastic flop like Kirk Cameron's recent Christmas movie, but these movies support the mythologies that are vital to propping up a religion that, let's face it, is now well past its sell by date.

You see I dearly love fantasy movies and will gleefully spend my hard earned money to watch all kinds of completely unrealistic action sequences on the big screen.  I like horror movies, superhero movies, dinosaur movies, Liam Neeson movies, you name it.

However in most cases the line between fantasy and reality is pretty easy to identify.  (Though I actually have problems with movies about demonic possession as well because I think they perpetuate a superstition that can be quite harmful to people with mental health problems.)

And besides at least Captain America movies never promoted a mythology which supports the oppression of women, makes it alright to hate gays, and is actively trying to destroy scientific education in this country.

I'm just saying.

The topless militants of Femen have a new target, Fox News and Sean Hannity.

Courtesy of Salon:

Femen’s manner of protesting has not proved to everyone’s liking, to put it mildly, but one thing is certain: In an era of rising political disaffection and apathy, people pay attention. Bare breasts are not incidental to Femen’s struggle. The movement has aimed to wrest conceptions about women’s bodies from the clutches of the three (doctrinally prudish and phallocratic) Abrahamic religions that would shroud them, partly or in full, in cloth as well as in shame. Toplessness is, in Femen’s view, a means of boldly violating gender- and faith-based societal norms; and atheism has formed a part of the Femen canon since the movement’s inception in 2008. 

Atheism has been dear to (Inna) Shevchenko in particular: Her own life has been shaped and even upended by her fight for secularist ideals. In protest against the harsh, Orthodox Church-supported prison sentence Pussy Riot received from the Russian authorities, in August 2012 she chainsawed a towering wooden cross in central Kiev in her native Ukraine. Publicly threatened as a result by Ukraine’s conservative President Viktor Yanukovych (deposed last year) and facing charges of “criminal hooliganism” for her deed, she fled to France and established Femen’s first outpost abroad. There, she soon rocketed to fame (better said, infamy), leading her militants in a multitude of fiercely faithless demonstrations in favor of women’s rights and same-sex marriage that pushed Gallic tolerance of free speech to the limit. Perhaps most controversially, she inspired the depiction of the revered (and bare-breasted) heroine of the French Revolution Marianne now gracing the country’s postage stamps, becoming the only foreign woman to do so. This still infuriates France’s nationalistic (and ascendant) far right, which has called (unsuccessfully) for the stamp to be withdrawn.

The Salon reporter, Jeffrey, Taylor, asked Shevchenko why she is so aggressive in criticizing the new pope, her answer was rather interesting: 

“The pope said he recognized the Big Bang,” she answered. “He sees how his doctrine doesn’t accord with progress, so he says things like this. He also said, ‘Who am I to criticize gay people?’ Just for this, we’re ready to hand over Parliament to him? This is just his strategy so he can come and speak at the Parliament. He says God isn’t a magician and wins great popularity even with some atheists. But if we believe him, we’re twice foolish; we become slaves of the most powerful religious institution, the Vatican, and then we invite him to Parliament. This just shows how stupid we [atheists] are and how clever they are.” She paused. “Not many Americans know that the Vatican received its statehood from Mussolini … It’s highly symbolic that Vatican statehood was created by a fascist.”

Very good points all. Clearly this is yet another Atheist who thinks the Pope is a little too good to be true.

(Nudity below the fold.)

Taylor also asked Shevchenko if Femen had any new targets in their sites:

There was one other target Femen would like to strike: Fox News. 

“Anyone in particular there?” I asked. 

“Femen doesn’t reject people, it rejects ideas.” 

I pressed her to name names. She ventured one: that of talk-show host Sean Hannity. 

Sean Hannity! An attack on him would earn Femen evergreen laurels in a yet-to-be-erected pantheon of progressivism. A more deserving target of the movement’s bare-breasted ire would be tough to imagine.

Personally I think this is the kind of thing that Hannity will not be unable to resist talking about, and if he does that will only mean that Femen has successfully manipulated him into publicizing their movement on one of the most popular cable news shows in America.

It may be easy for some to dismiss these woman due to their use of nudity to garner attention, but these are certainly not bimbos.

These are very intelligent and driven women, who are making quite a name for themselves in Europe and Russia.

And they certainly had not difficulty getting the attention of at least one world leader.

Personally I welcome any help in taking down Fox News and Sean Hannity in particular.

American pastor who helped craft Uganda's "Kill the Gays" legislation to be tried for crimes against humanity.

Courtesy of Death and Taxes:  

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Pastor Scott Lively’s petition to have a crimes against humanity lawsuit against him dropped. 

The anti-gay pastor will stand trial in a federal court in Massachusetts for his part in crafting Uganda’s notorious Anti-Homosexuality Act, popularly known as the “Kill the Gays” bill. The bill was largely the product of a workshop held in Uganda by Lively and two other american anti-gay activists, focused on “how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how ‘the gay movement is an evil institution’ whose goal is ‘to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”

Look, apparently you can still get justice in America.  Assuming of course that he is eventually convicted.

This bill in Uganda has spread fear throughout the gay community, and among those who have friends and family who are gay. And resulted in a dramatic spike in the number of attacks on homosexuals.

Of course these charges have done little or nothing to change Lively's homophobia:

Lively said that homosexuality is a Satanic attack “on the very essence of who we are” that God has deemed a more offensive abomination than mass killings: “When you look in the Bible, there are sins that you would think of as worse, you know, murder or mass murder, but what does it come down to? Leviticus 18 tells the Hebrews exactly what it is that God identifies as the most rebellious behavior, the behavior that causes the land to actually vomit out its inhabitants and every item on that list, except for child sacrifice, is sexual perversion, and child sacrifice is often a form of sexual perversion. So that’s where we are.” 

“Homosexuality is not just another sin,” he added, “it is the sin that defines rebellion against God, the outer edge of rebellion against God and it is the harbinger of God’s wrath, that’s why the Scripture gives the warning, ‘as in the days of Noah.’” 

Oh yeah this guy needs to spend some real quality time in prison. 

The real cancer in this country is fairly easy to detect.

The idea that seemingly rational people can say, or accept, this kind of thing absolutely boggles my freaking mind.

Just a petition to have the Bible removed from all Target stores. Here let me get a pen.

Courtesy of Change.org:

It's a book that encourages readers to murder women for entertainment. The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'god' points – and now Target are stocking it and promoting it for your Xmas stocking. 

This is The Holy Bible. This book means that after various sex acts, readers are given options to kill women by stoning her unconscious, Setting them on fire, cutting off their hands, and killing their children! 

One of many fan passages on In The Holy Bible depicts woman being set alight for having sex "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9). 

This misogynistic book literally makes a game of bashing, killing and horrific violence against women. It also links sexual arousal and violence. 

Just knowing that women are being portrayed as deserving to be sexually used by men and potentially murdered for sport and pleasure – to see this violence turned into a form of entertainments is sickening and causes us great pain and harm. 

This book spreads the idea that certain women exist as scapegoats for male violence. It shows hatred and contempt for women in the sex industry and puts them at greater risk. Women in the industry are 40 times more likely to be murdered by a man than any other group of women. 

Books like this are grooming yet another generation of boys to tolerate violence against women. It is fueling the epidemic of violence experienced by so many girls and women in Australia - and globally. 

Target, you pride yourself on being a family company, caring for local communities, and have a strong ethical sourcing policy. How can you do this while contributing to hostile and callous attitudes toward victims of violence and, more broadly, to all women? 

Please put ethics before profits and make a strong statement that you do not condone sexual violence, sexual exploitation or the abuse of women as ‘entertainment’. 

Well it's hard to argue against all that now isn't it?

It is hard to imagine that Target would comply with this request, but it is worth noting that the petition is only 134 signatures shy of reaching its goal of 25,000 as I write this.

So that tells us something.

And I do so enjoy tilting at windmills sometimes.

Class...class...class...SHUT UP! Thank you. Now listen as Rick Santorum educates you on the fact that the separation of church and state is a communist idea, not an American one.

Courtesy of Right Wing Watch:  

In a conference call with members of right-wing pastor E.W. Jackson’s STAND America that was posted online today, former senator Rick Santorum disputed the existence of the separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution, dismissing it as a Communist idea that has no place in America. 

A listener on the call told Santorum that “a number of the things that the far left, a.k.a. the Democrat [sic] Party, and the president is pushing for and accomplishing actually accomplishes a number of the tenets of ‘The Communist Manifesto,’ including the amnesty, the elevation of pornography, homosexuality, gay marriage, voter fraud, open borders, mass self-importation of illegal immigrants and things of that nature.” The likely presidential candidate replied that “the words ‘separation of church and state’ is not in the U.S. Constitution, but it was in the constitution of the former Soviet Union. That’s where it very, very comfortably sat, not in ours.” 

Wow! And here I thought there were limits to how Christian revisionists could rewrite American history.

Of course as Right Wing Watch points out Thomas Jefferson himself referred to the separation of church and state in an 1802 letter:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

The intention of the founding fathers seems fairly clear. That is unless you are Rick Santorum of course, and you refuse to accept facts which will not support your hypothesis. Or your faith.

Exactly.

Bill Maher finds himself disappointed with the new Pope again.

On his blog (Oh yes, he has one too!) Bill Maher decides that though he likes the new Pope, he simply cannot condone his praise for exorcists: 

Pope Francis has quickly established himself as the progressive Pope – not your father’s Holy Father. Early on, he said atheists can get into heaven. He’s expressed compassion for gays and even said that there’s a place for them in the Church. He’s affirmed the Big Bang Theory and evolution. He’s got a gambling problem he jokes about and it’s long been an open secret that he has a wife and three kids. 

But every time this Pope makes me think he’s dragging the Catholic Church kicking and screaming – like an altar boy into the rectory – into the modern, rational era, he goes and kicks it old school. The latest is that he met with and affirmed the work of the International Association of Exorcists, a group of 300 practicing Catholic exorcists. 

Embracing the idea that people are possessed by demons and that there are rituals to cast these demons out – that’s not just crazy, that’s Antonin Scalia crazy. I’d like to believe that Pope Francis doesn’t really believe this crap, but rather just feels he has to stay “on script.”

Like Maher I think a lot of people want to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt in the hopes that he is the level headed reformer that he seems to want to portray himself to be. 

However that is simply impossible when you realize that the Pope still supports some of the church's most egregious dogma as well as the idea that people can literally be possessed by invisible magical creatures that exist to spread evil and torment mankind.

Here is what the Pope said back in October: 

Pope Francis has told a convention of exorcists from around the world that they are doing sterling service in combating "the Devil's works", as the Catholic Church warned of a rise in Satanism and the occult. 

The Pope, who frequently cites the fight against Satan in his sermons, said that exorcists needed to show "the love and welcome of the Church for those possessed by evil". By treating people who were possessed, priests could demonstrate that "the Church welcomes those suffering from the Devil's works," he said in a message to a conference organised in Rome by the International Association of Exorcists.

On an almost daily basis I interact with, and treat, individuals with behaviors that two hundred years ago would surely have seen them beaten into submission (Spare the rod, spoil the child.), locked up in a sanitarium for their entire lives, or terrorized by a religious nut who would tell them that the source of their problems lies in their lack of faith and the fact that they have allowed themselves to become a dwelling place for evil.

Today we treat with patience, medications, and behavior modifications, people who would have received the kind of treatment that even farm animals were spared hundreds of years ago.

The idea that this Pope continues to promote this superstitious nonsense rips away any facade that he is reasonable or modern in his thought process.

New book uncovers the ugliness that hides within the hearts of self proclaimed "Christians" when they feel called to defend their faith.

Courtesy of Salon:  

Over the past few years, America has been divided by religion. The culture wars have heated up with secularists on one side and God-fearing Americans on the other, and to understate things: They disagree. But does that mean we hate one another? If the animosity is so intense, what kind of outrage goes too far? Bonnie Weinstein has tackled this issue in an important but very troubling book out Dec. 2, titled “To the Far Right Christian Hater … You Can Be a Good Speller or a Hater, But You Can’t Be Both: Official Hate Mail, Threats, and Criticism From the Archives of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.” 

Married to Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), the author has collected and annotated a sampling of the hate mail the foundation has received over the past few years. This hate mail is not trolling or anonymous “Internet comments.” The letters are specific and threatening and most often include a return address or email. The Weinsteins’ home has been vandalized — many times — and the family has had to take serious and expensive security measures. It’s no joke. As I read the book, curled up on my couch, my wife kept asking if I was OK. My face was fixed in an expression of horror and disbelief as I read the rage, hate and cruelty cataloged on every page. Bonnie has uncovered a shocking reality: Self-professed Christians deny the fundamental humanity of other people they don’t even know. 

As hard as it was to read in places, it’s important to read and understand. It offers an unflinching examination of a subset of American fundamentalism, created by a segment of our society that is whiter, more conservative and a lot angrier than the rest of America. For some people the future of their faith and of the nation are in danger, threatened by secular forces controlled by Satan himself. This existential threat to Christian supremacy justifies the most offensive, vulgar and cruel letters I’ve ever read. Think I’m overstating it? Read the book.

"Self-professed Christians deny the fundamental humanity of other people they don’t even know." Gee, ya think?

 As somebody who has been on the receiving end of some of this vitriol I am completely unsurprised by the fact that so-called "Christians" can be filled with an almost bottomless pit of hatred which bubbles to the surface whenever they feel their religion or idols are under attack.

I have little doubt that the people who called the school where I worked and threatened to shoot me on the playground would self identify as Christians.

Just as the people who send the off times hilariously angry comments to Richard Dawkins. Which he enjoys reading aloud to his supporters.

Of course the idea that being a Christian, whether practicing or merely for ornamental purposes, makes you a more ethical or moral person is utter nonsense. Yet that is the conceit used to sell the religion to the masses, and impress upon people that these believers should be trusted and admired above all others.

These letters do much to disprove that assertion.