An ‘Atheist Extremist’, Lord, at Last AT LAST!

Craig Stephen Hicks, accused in the murder of three Muslim Students:  Durham County Sheriff’s Office, via Associated Press

(Satire)

By Lance Luther:

Ever since Sep. 11th dropped two skyscrapers worth of headaches on our heads and the roar of atheists have clamored for the blood of violent Christians and Muslims ever since, we religionists have prayed every day for a target that we could answer back in kind to.

The good lord has provided us with that target.

Before the smoke had even dissipated on a Tuesday in February, and well before the details came in, my fellow traveler Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig made us all glow with newborn pride by writing ‘The Chapel Hill Murders Should be a Wake Up Call to Atheists‘ for The New Republic.  You should read it and come back.  My heart still burns with self-righteous vindication; there really are atheist extremists!  Never mind the disgusting way the author (and a small army of others–can you say praise the Lord!) uses the murder of three young Muslim students (of Arab descent), two of them newlyweds, to get a dig in on atheists before anything was known about the facts, that can be safely ignored, my friends.  After all, it’s worth it to finally get a chance to kick some smug faces in.

I completely agree with the authors contention that atheists are all Satan-worshiping male children (um, except for my esteemed colleague prof. Squawkins of course), never mind the robust feminist atheist community out there, and never mind the average age of every well-known atheist thinker since the Enlightenment (maybe the author should peep the author photos of near every atheist author).  And yes, everybody knows that Christians hate atheists–but YES!  WAKE UP CALL you kiddy atheists!  Maybe now you’ll stop kidnapping christian children and sacrificing them along with she-goats to the Devil.

As details emerge about this atheist scumbag, we find that…uh…he was a gun collector overcome with rage over a parking violation…and victim Deah Barakat’s own brother said that Craig Stephen Hicks never made any kind of anti-Muslim comments during said ongoing feud…and his wife flatly rejected any religious motive for the slayings and that Hicks was vocal about equal rights for all as well as irreligion, and even the New York Times isn’t falling for the ‘hate crime’ theory.

um, maybe we should just forget about this one.  If we keep it up, atheists could blame any murder on Christians or Muslims, since overwhelmingly, a killer would probably identify themselves as one of the two and since motive seems so irrelevant to authors like Bruenig, why should it be relevant to atheists?

If we keep writing articles like this one after the evidence has come in, us Christians and Muslims will just look stupid.

Lance Luthur is writing the sequel to his groundbreaking (but unfortunately lost in a pig-ditch in a Kentucky field) manifesto.  It will be entitled, ‘The Lord’s Anger and You: How to Stamp Out Christian Liberalism Within Your Own Communities While Kicking Out the Catholics and Bringing Back Tammy Faye and Other Important business”.

He plans to nail copies to the White House door, Pat Robertson’s Studio, and the Pope’s Lavatory.  This time he swears to use a longer nail… 

 

 

Advertisements

Sana Saeed and Salon Muddles Science, Name-Drops Richard Dawkins for Clicks:

By now, you are all used to the headline style.  Some online rag finds a religious defender who writes an article wholly unrelated to Richard Dawkins and anything he actually said or did, but leads in with a headline that screams his name like a cat in heat (and later in the article lists the other usual suspects) just to set up a big, fat strawman to rail against and gain clicks while ranting and spouting inanities.

Salon writer Sana Saeed; Muslim and budding Islamic apologist, has picked up this bad habit rather quickly in a rambling article whining against ‘New Atheists’ (as opposed to what?  Old atheism?  Did the ‘old’ atheists refer only to Zeus or something?) and claiming (through nothing but a one-person anecdotal story) that religion can’t possibly be in conflict with science because she liked science fairs as a kid or something.

Ok, Saeed ‘busts out’ a bit more than that.  She also drags out the trope that Islam was once a vast center of science and culture (yes we know; then it entered into its own Dark Ages a bit later than we in the West did and began to spend lots of time blowing all that culture up.  Today that trope is pretty irrelevant.  Lets not forget that much of that science and philosophy was developed by Western slaves, servants and dhimmis in the ’employ’ of Islamic courts).  Sure, there are shiny modern parts of the Middle East, and they are something to be rightfully proud of…and every one of them is modern in spite of Islam and big, fat targets for extremists everywhere.  Then there is Turkey, a nation that had to ban Islam outright to achieve modernity.

Regardless, the idea here is a pretty common claim; that science actually owes its advances, if not its very existence to religion, and early scientists were all religious.

Well, so what?  Budding proto-scientists had to be religious.  There simply wasn’t any other choice in the Middle Ages, and new ways of thinking were just re-emerging.  If you lived in the West in western science’s formative years you had to be a Catholic (or a Protestant in later ages, although for some time that was a death sentence if the authorities found out) and in the Eastern world one was more or less either Greek Orthodox Christian or of one of the Islamic sects.  A few slaves and scattered communities of other faiths (and the Jewish people of course, and look how both cultures treated them) were exceptions that proved the rule.  But original thinkers of all stripes were persecuted and killed by both religions, and when a coherent voice for atheism was formed, that too was immediately attacked and atheists were persecuted and even killed wherever they were found, right up to the enlightenment and beyond.  The list of great men killed in the name of original inquiry by Christians is profoundly sad, but the number of nameless men and women not remembered in the timeline of history is truly appalling.  Whole towns of original thinkers were slaughtered in the name of religion, such as the Cathers of the south of France.  Whole nations were decimated by the missionaries and conquistadors.  Whole cultures were converted by force, such as parts of Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean by Islam and Saxon tribes by Christians.

Science itself was of course, just beginning to develop its methods during the Middle Ages, after suffering a bit of a set-back since the Greeks and Romans began developing it.  It disappeared almost entirely in Europe, replaced with secretive guilds that hoarded knowledge for the Church’s exclusive use, and the rote learning of fixed and officially-approved knowledge taught at universities (such as certain aspects of the blood circulation system which people could see for themselves was dead wrong every time a corpse was dissected.  But to say so meant imprisonment, torture, death).  All of this was controlled and regulated by the Church (Islamic universities were somewhat better but again, their ‘little set-back’ came later).

Italian universities for example, were strictly controlled; only teachers were allowed to even touch books from the Index of Forbidden Books, and could teach from them only to refute them.  The inquisition strictly monitored both teachers and students, demonstrated by the fate of Pomponio Algerio (1531–1556), a civil law students who was killed by the inquisition for his attitude of free inquiry.  In a time when early forms of Protestant movements were growing in number, he wrote that:

“… the Roman Catholic Church is a particular Church and no Christian should restrict himself to any particular Church. This Church deviates in many things from truth.”

At his trial, he wore his student’s robes to remind the Church that as a student, he was supposed to have the right to free expression.  Apparently, the Church saw things differently.  They boiled him in oil.  It is said that he took 15 minutes to die, and kept his composure the whole time.

The point is that both in the West and in the East, people were in the middle of a process; a process of growing away from strictly religious thinking and towards a more secular world view.  This left many people trapped in two worlds, so to speak.  To say that these people were ‘Christian’ or ‘Islamic’ is to oversimplify what was happening.  Many of these people had heretical ideas of what Christianity or Islam was all about.  Others may have been outright unbelievers, but for the sake of their heads, they kept their silence.  Still others were perfectly devout, but understood that religion alone couldn’t provide the answers to their inquiries, and that’s the key to understanding how one could be religious and still work in fields that conflict with religiosity.  It’s the ability to compartmentalize different ways of thinking, just like an anti-capitalist can still operate in a capitalist society–because they have to.

Their really is a conflict between science and religion (of any kind), but religionists get it completely wrong by thinking of it in terms of a war or battle (like they always do when criticized).  Its the claims that are in conflict, and it is the methods that the two fields use to come to those claims that are incompatible.  Revealed knowledge can never arrive at any form of truth, save by accident.  This is because, at the very least, it is impossible to verify the truth of what a ‘revealer’ says.  A prophet could by lying, a faith-healer may be sincere but deluded, a visionary might have been on drugs and hallucinating at the time; we just cannot know, and without some real means of independent verification, revealed knowledge can never hold a candle to the scientific method, which does provide the means of independent verification, faith or no faith.

This isn’t to say that there are no actual battles that pit the two concepts against each other.  Creationists are certainly waging an organized, high-stakes battle against evolution, and we fail to take this battle seriously at our peril.  Christian Evangelists did a great deal to hold back stem cell research in the U.S. costing many lives and putting us behind other countries.  I don’t need to talk about Catholics and Aids, and Islamic groups target schools all over the Middle East and Africa.

We certainly can’t wax all poetic and dream that both concepts sit all chummy and comfortable side-by-side, like the way that religious moderates like Saeed want to present the situation.  When Saeed and people like her present their own stories and go on about how they don’t understand where this ‘conflict thesis’ comes from, they either don’t get the concept, or they are being intellectually dishonest.  What they don’t get is that they are nobodies–completely irrelevant.

When adults talk about a complex situation, they often take verbal shortcuts by making generalizations.  Both sides of the discussion; if they are being honest, understand this, and come to the table knowing what main terms and concepts mean.  So when we say, “science and religion’ are in conflict, we understand that by ‘science’ and ‘religion’, we are talking about the leadership and powerful, influential members of a church or scientific institutions, or the claims made by many people from these disciplines, or any official doctrines or dogma that may be relevant, but not the rank and file and moderate nobodies, although there are plenty of nobodies that have no problem supporting extremists, and plenty of useful indoctrinated idiots willing to do the work of religious leaders for them; just recently, excavations from as late as the 17th century revealed the body of an astrologer stoned to death by an oh-so-moral mob after accusations of rape and black magic were leveled at an astrologer.  This type of mob law (perpetrated overwhelmingly for moral and religious reasons) was far too common in the Middle Ages and often left unrecorded.  It the main though, we are talking about the small group of people with the ability to directly shape their institutions.  In the case of religion, overwhelmingly, these people embody the criticisms that New Atheists level at religion.  Just look at Bill Donahue or Pat Robertson.   Even the new Pope, for all his liberal ideas, is almost medieval in his thinking when it comes to the right to criticize religion.

So, if you are the type who goes around wailing about how atheists ‘have childish definitions of religion’, maybe you need to look a little closer to home.  Unless they actually did provide a definition, it says more about you than it does about atheists when you are the one providing that definition by accusing others of having it.  If you don’t ‘get’ the generalization, you don’t deserve a place at the table yet; go back to reading.  At least atheists engage with the actual religious texts directly.  It seems that ‘sophisticated theologians’ of any faith just make up whatever they feel like when an atheist is in the room and then returns to the definition of religion we all know damn well once they leave.  All that ‘God’ is big and unknowable malarkey is just that.  Neither Christians nor Muslims believe in Pantheism, and we all know it.

Getting back to science itself, Sana Saeed all out gushes about Islamic ‘science’ as if their ridiculous claims about science are somehow better than Christianity’s outlandish claims.  For her big example, she makes much of Al-Tusi’s ‘theory’ of evolution, that denies that humans are related to apes and argues some kind of learned hereditary inheritance.  She further writes of Al-Tusi’s theories:

“Al-Tusi’s discussion on biological evolution and the relationship of synchronicity between animate and inanimate objects is stunning in its observational precision as well as its fusion with theistic considerations. Yet it is, at best, unacknowledged today in the Euro-centric conversation on religion and science. Why?”

I propose that the West doesn’t ignore this theory out of Eurocentric considerations.  Perhaps the West ignores Al-Tusi because his theories are a muddled mish-mash of unscientific woo mixed with mythology and stories of genies and elemental monsters.  Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe Western scientists are just jealous and want to engage in a vast conspiracy to suppress religious-based science (a pretty good feat of cooperation when they are all competing against one another).  But if you want to be taken seriously as science, one must play by the rules of the scientific method.  If Al-Tusi ever used “observational precision” to see fire-monsters, I want to know how others can verify this (or a list of ingredients from his pipe!)  There were many others who theorized that organisms evolved; both in the East and West.  We don’t talk much about them because they were wrong and Darwin was right.

One last thing; Saeed makes a big point about how ‘free’ she is as a woman thanks to Islam.  I would really like to see those “Quranic verses and references from the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad” that ‘prove’ that Islam doesn’t subjugate women.  I followed the link she provided, and just found an article about her father where she once again references her ‘rights’ as a woman (ala the Quran, of course) without actually mentioning what those rights happen to be (why should you even need the Quran if they are rights?).

 

 

 

“The Boy Who Went to Heaven” is a Bunch of Malarkey (But you Knew that didn’t You?)

Alex Malarkey, the boy who woke up from a coma after a car accident who co-authored a book in 2010 with his father describing his adventures through the pearly gates has recanted his story.

Yes, “The Boy Who Went to Heaven” was made up, according to the “Boy” himself-and this STILL hasn’t stopped the book from selling, according to MSN Business Insider.  In an open letter to Christian publishers, young Malarkey, who has been trying to get people to listen to him for awhile now apparently, flatly denies he even had visions of heaven, let alone went there.  here’s the whole letter (Malarkey is incredibly to-the-point for a Christian):

“An Open Letter to Lifeway and Other Sellers, Buyers, and Marketers of Heaven Tourism, by the Boy Who Did Not Come Back From Heaven.”

Please forgive the brevity, but because of my limitations I have to keep this short.

I did not die. I did not go to Heaven.

I said I went to heaven because I thought it would get me attention. When I made the claims that I did, I had never read the Bible. People have profited from lies, and continue to. They should read the Bible, which is enough. The Bible is the only source of truth. Anything written by man cannot be infallible.

It is only through repentance of your sins and a belief in Jesus as the Son of God, who died for your sins (even though he committed none of his own) so that you can be forgiven may you learn of Heaven outside of what is written in the Bible…not by reading a work of man. I want the whole world to know that the Bible is sufficient. Those who market these materials must be called to repent and hold the Bible as enough.

In Christ,

Alex Malarkey.”

According to the website, some of the publishers, and even the President of Lifeway, knew that Malarkey was retracting his statements but deliberately chose to ignore it.  In fact, as of Jan 16th (why, that’s today!), the book has still not been pulled from Lifeway, although the reportedly intend to pull it.  Because a good heart-warming Christian tale is gar-an-teed money in the pocket and who the hell cares if it was true?  Not like it ever could have been, unless the drugs were really good.

This wasn’t the first time Malarkey and his mother have tried to speak out.  The site describes how earlier efforts by the two met with failure:

“…Although Alex’s mother has tried to speak out and contacted book-sellers and has been flatly ignored, going back to at least December 2012, on her blog and in other places, I believe this is the first time Alex has himself spoken out in such a direct way in his own…except for posting a comment relaying this information on the Alex Malarkey fan page on Facebook, after which the comment was deleted by moderators and he was blocked from the group.”

Only Christians would actually try to stop a (let’s face it) fraud from trying to come clean.  Deleting and blocking the guy who wrote the damn book is kinda like Jesus returning and somebody shooting him before he can say anything embarrassing!

At least the two are trying to do the right thing, even if their reasons sound a little too-holy-to-be-entirely-kosher.  It’s unclear whether or not Alex Malarkey has even seen any proceedings from sales of the book.  Comments made by his mother seem to imply that he has not, but she hasn’t been direct about it.

 

 

Staff of C.A.A.C.A Downed by Flu, Vows to Keep Publishing:

While composing a New years post for this blog, a killer Flu virus burst into our offices and downed the staff for nearly two weeks now.  It appears that while we were out, the religious world around us went batshit insane.

In just the first weeks of 2015 since we last wrote, 12 cartoonists in France were gunned down by Islamic extremist who yelled, well…you know what they yelled.  Yes, once again it was over cartoons depicting Mohammed, along with other Islamic themes, in a not-so-flattering light.

As you have certainly heard by now, millions of people and over 40 World Leaders gathered in Paris to honor the fallen cartoonists (the U.S. was strangely absent from the rally, and is facing some harsh criticism for it-although Obama did call Hollande and said, “Yo, we’re with ya bro!”).

Immediately after the two gunmen committed this atrocity (police are currently looking for possible accomplishes), the arguments about whether or not it was appropriate to print the cartoons began.  People who had never seen or read a copy of Charlie Hebdo and couldn’t speak or read a word of French condemned the images as racist (pretty funny coming from a strongly anti-racist, nonconformist, and left-wing magazine), always careful however, to hedge their words with a weaselly ‘but’ as in, “I would never say the cartoonists deserved it, but…” Some people (especially the kind of people that are often the subject of it) just can’t seem to get a grip on satire.  Satire draws portraits of a power or authority and holds it up to the real thing like a mirror, but grotesque and distorted (which is what the subject looks like in truth, without the mask of social decorum firmly in place).  It draws the views of these people and drags them out kicking and screaming into the light of day for everyone to see (hence the depiction of so-called ‘welfare queens’ of Islam in an issue of Charlie Hebdo-that was the view of a certain intolerant right-wing party pushing ‘immigration reform’ in France, and CH was laughing at that view, not endorsing it.  When the great Johnathan Swift wrote satire entitled”A Modest Proposal” he was, (razor tongue in cheek) suggesting that the government deal with starvation, famine, and the almost non-existent economy at the the time by selling unwanted children for food, and using the skin for the fine clothes of great Lords and Ladies.  He was, of course, highlighting how little the rich cared about the plight of the people, by shoving it in their faces.  You can read this masterpiece of satire here:

A Modest Proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick (1729)

But hey-let’s grant (just for a moment) that the cartoons were every bit as racist as argued; vile spiteful little drawings from a colonial white power elite intended to belittle and laugh about the hopes and problems of some minority brown-skinned race that France doesn’t like.  Let’s grant that ridiculous notion for a moment.

Here in America, we had a group of elite whites cartoonists that really did do that, (and they slip in sometimes even today) and we had an entire group of people-recently freed African Americans, who really did have every reason to decry how they were depicted (not to mention how they were beaten in the streets on a regular basis, lynched by vigilante mobs or plain old hate mobs, and numerous other forms of direct oppression).  They were oppressed by a colonial power, laughed at and made fun of with openly racist cartoons of a truly sickening nature and had every right to go after cartoonists when the civil rights movement erupted.  Yet no cartoonists were ever murdered by angry revenge mobs that I’ve ever heard of, and if they had, no one would have ever said, “it doesn’t excuse the murder, but…”.  If this kind of revenge murder didn’t happen then, I wonder what the different factor was that tipped the scales towards violence this time around?  Of course it’s religion, the factor everyone screams has nothing to do with it (or anyways, isn’t the real reason) even while the murderers claim to A: be working in the name of the prophet, B: demand that others submit to their understanding of blasphemy, and C: demand the institution of religious governance.

One person who has had a long career of tweaking his nose at power is legendary cartoonist Robert Crumb, best known for his underground comics of the 60’s and 70’s and who now lives in France.  This interview about the cartoon he just drew for the French newspaper, Liberation of “The hairy ass of Muhammed,” is an excellent read.

Of course, it was only a matter of time before our resident apologist Reza Aslan got into the act, but that’s the subject of a later post-we will need all our health to take on the grand master of uncertainty.

Meanwhile, Boko Haram, who desperately needs more attention by the international community, went on a murderous rampage through villages that left as many as 2,000 dead and 30,000 displaced in Nigeria starting on Jan. 3rd of 2015.  The Islamic rebel army have been terrorizing the region for the last nine days and bodies are still lying uncounted and unaccounted for.  For some strange reason, nobody is wearing shirts or holding signs saying “I am Baga town and surrounding villages and 2000 senselessly-killed and 30,000 driven from their homes, possibly forever.”  We guess it’s just not catchy enough.  Regardless, our we will post in greater detail about the massacre soon.

In lesser news, the Atlantic contained an article relating what must be some of the most terrible, faith-testing, frustrating questions an Islamist militant could ever face; the first-world problem-based questions of aspiring Western Jihadists.  The website Ask.fm has become a sight where hip aspiring IS militants gather in order to find out such essential-to-survival questions as whether or not WI-FI will be available (it will…or so they say!), or if a scrappy young Jihadist needs a parents permission to go marauding (It’s best, but better yet to bring the parents along!  “Hey Mom!  Guess where we’re going on vacation this year!?”)  Reading this article, you can just imagine some battle-hardened Jihadist, wearing his suicide vest with a bloody machete strapped to his vest, facepalming over and over and over again…

Last but not least, the non-hacktivist group Anonymous is pissed over Charlie Hebdo.  They have vowed to hunt down every last terrorist and annoy them for a day or two (as long as nobody throws an insult at one of their GamerZone buddies or something, in which case they will be forced to devote all their resources to Operation: Kid in Basement).  They reportedly already hit one target (a French extremist site) for like, a whole hour.  Rumor has it that al Qaeda, Is, Hamas and Hezbollah and the other major terrorist organizations are all expected to formally surrender and turn over their weapons over the next few days.

Here’s one of their silly videos, complete with that Max-Headroom shit.

Anonymous could have cost quite a few lives back when it tried to interfere with the IDF in Israel during the last major conflict there.  This time they may lose a few of their own.

A quick message for Anonymous; denial-of-service attacks are not hacking.  Could you maybe learn a new trick?

That’s only a portion of the insanity raging around religion over the last few weeks and the remaining staff at C.A.A.C.A. swears that this virus will not keep us down.  The blog will continue.  The blog must continue.  We are C.A.A.C.A.

Ken Ham Shakes Fist at Those Damn Atheists:

By Rev. Lance Luther:

Ken Ham, visibly red; sweat pouring down from his face and his shirt collar loose and partially undone, raised his fist defiantly to the air and screamed to the very heavens:  “Damn you, you ungodly atheists!!  Damn you all to Hell!!!”

Some people who witnessed the event swore that there was an ear-splitting crack of thunder as Ham shouted those words, and that lightning played across the well-known creationist’s fist, but most observers admitted that it was a sunny day with birds singing and a slight breeze lightly blowing across the lands that make up the Ark Encounters theme park, where Ham made his statements to the press.

Vowing revenge of Biblical proportions, Ham has stated that he intends to sue the State of Kentucky over his right to receive $81 Million dollars in order to build a giant toy boat with,  while discriminating against workers.  “I wasn’t going to do that, I WASN’T!!!  I WASN’T!!!” Ham exclaimed, jumping up and down while pumping his fists, with busts of steam coming out of his ears and great clouds of earth rising up around him.  “I was only going to discriminate against people over at the secular bits of my museum!”

So now Ham is claiming that the Commonwealth of Kentucky is violating Ham’s god-given–I mean, constitutional right to deny employment to anyone that isn’t Ham’s kind of Christian…the stupid kind.  Ham’s lawyers, not familiar with the difference between a church and a for-profit business, insist that Ark Encounters should be able to discriminate, like ‘all other religious organizations do’ and to do otherwise would “change their identity,” not only making the state’s case for them, but also accidentally implying that religions are inherently discriminatory.  It’s like God created a stupid-bomb and set if off around everyone involved with the Creation Museum and Ark Encounters.

Seeking the opinion of some of Ham’s competition, I spoke to Pope Methuselah Leroy about Ham’s attitude.  Pope Leroy is the old fella up the way who awoke one day to a vision that told him he was Christ’s real, bad-ass vicar on Earth and then commanded him to make a giant five story tree-house church out of nothing but old tires.  He said that Ham should just “Quit his hollarin’.  I didn’t get no million-dollar grant and I did just fine.  Jesus provides, remember?  There’s plenty of free timber at the town junk yard, and nails are all over the place.  Watch out for the dogs though.”

But Ham would hear nothing of good old Christian self-reliance.  Instead he erected a cruel and terrible revenge upon the atheists…a billboard that made them all laugh out loud.  One atheist was reduced to tears.  Once he had recovered he was finally able to gasp feebly, “Sink this ship…”, before collapsing to the ground again.  “Ken Ham couldn’t do better if he had channeled the spirit of Robin Williams!”

Credit: Ark Encounters
Credit: Ark Encounters

Nationwide, those atheists were up to even more shenanigans.  It wasn’t enough to put up those mocking Satanic displays in Florida (praise be to the brave ‘Christian Warrior’ who saved us all from that threat), or to help some evil Muslim woman in Ohio sue the Cuyahoga County Jail for forcing her to attend Christian services.  This is just a small sample of the evils that atheists have allowed to propagate across the land over the last few months.

Now those dirty atheists are going after our precious Homeland Security laws, along with a Kentucky plaque placed at the Kentucky Emergency Operations Center in Frankfort that actually, according to Ham, “requires Kentucky’s Office of Homeland Security to acknowledge it can’t keep the state safe without God’s help.”  Because apparently, an invisible man who is never around and never heard to issue orders is the commander and chief of all of our military (which would explain a lot, actually).

Yes, Ham has taken to the internet with a withering expose on how those atheists are trying to get rid of part of a Kentucky state anti-terrorism law that comes dangerously close to providing a legal framework for a state religion (although it makes no mention of any particular specific religion, thankfully).  Both the law and the plaque in question, (which partially reads that national security, “…cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God.”), “…is one of the most egregiously and breathtakingly unconstitutional actions by a state legislature that I’ve ever seen,” according to Edwin F. Kagin, the national legal director of  American Atheists Inc (based out of Parsippany, N.J.).  In his brilliant condemnation of the atheists, Ken Ham notes that Ed Kagin lives in the same region as himself and the Creation Museum, has been persecuting poor Ham and his loony bin–ah, museum, for years, and that–oops!  His address is 2800 Evilton Ave, Petersburg, KY 41080 and his private number is (588) 582-4253 and it sure would be a shame if that infidel unbelieving heathen were to be harassed or something….

On the other side of the issue, Dem. Rep. Tom Riner said, “No government by itself can guarantee perfect security.  There will always be this opposition to the acknowledgment of divine providence, but this is a foundational  understanding of what America is.”  Apparently, Riner failed to understand that 9/11 was a far cry from “perfect Safety”.  Where was divine providence then?  Where was God’s protection then?  Did he only begin his job as protector after Kentucky passed a law and made a shiny plaque?  What about the wounded veterans?  Didn’t they deserve ‘perfect safety’?  And since we are talking about ‘perfect’ safety and protection, as in God-like levels of perfection, shouldn’t our reputation and standing as a nation have been completely untarnished after events in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc?  After all, a shining reputation makes a nation safer than a tarnished one does.

On the other hand, maybe God let 9/11 happen on purpose, just so Kentucky could pass this law and God could get his official ‘in’ as the Grand Poo-bah of the military.  A spiritual ‘coup’ or false flag operation, if you will.  After all, he works in mysterious ways and all that, at least he does whenever Christians can’t think of an easy justification.

Anyways, the forces of Satan and the children of iniquity have been busy in Kentucky.  The atheists may mean well, based on their twisted, immoral little ideologies, but for each legal success they obtain that doesn’t replace religion with something at least as absolutist in its place, the rotten fruit of agnosticism creeps closer and closer.  Without God’s protection in our military, we might have to actually think about our motivations and goals.  Where’s the percentage in that?  Then there’s $81 Million bucks for an oversize wooden boat that will without a single doubt be causing accidents and injuries as it falls apart around the customers due to shoddy workmanship, construction shortcuts and funds diverted to offshore accounts and religious coffers.  Without that noble monument…ummm…ah…uhh, well….damn.

I can’t think of a single thing that anyone would lose if that eyesore never gets made.

Rev. Lance Luther

Lance Luther was born to a father who was a snake-handling Baptist from Warren, MI and a Louisiana Puritan mother who practiced Macumba on the side that made him do chores all day until Luther realized he could get his 13 brothers and sisters to do them for him if he collapsed to the ground, drooled, and made random noises while inserting ‘instructions’ to his siblings.  He never looked back and embarked upon his career as the Reverend of the ‘First Reformed Protestant of the Lost Lamb With the Swinging Sword and the Holy Spook with (Redacted)’, or the ‘Holy Swingers’ or ‘Swingers for the Lamb’ for short.

Noting the need for religious reform in America (too many laws that restricted the flow of money into Luther’s wallet), Luther penned his massive, monumental, brilliant, opus, ‘Manifesto Against the Protestant Work Ethic and a Call for a New ‘Murican Reformation’.  On a day that came to called ‘The Great Day of Reform’ among Luther’s followers, and ‘Sunday morning’ among everyone else, Luther had a copy of his manuscript nailed to every church door in the U.S. where they promptly blew away.  

Luther is currently involved in re-writing his greatest work (he forgot to keep a copy–forethought isn’t a prophet’s greatest strength) and calling for legislation to drug test babies before their mothers can be eligible for food stamps.  He also heads C.R.A.S.S.S. the Christians Response Alert for Silly Stories in School which advocates the teaching of alternative theories to evolution–but only if those theories are absolutist.     

He formed C.A.A.C.A. with Professor Richard Sqauwkins after a two week-long flame war that left both sides convinced that the real enemy of mankind is uncertainty.    

 

Yes Virginia: There Almost Certainly is Not a Santa Claus

By Pro. Richard Sqauwkins

Just before the holidays, I received a delightful letter from one of our younger followers that reads, in part:

Dear Professor, 

My name is Virginia, and I am 12 years old.  My friends tell me that there is no such thing as Santa Clause.  I just know it isn’t true!  There has to be a Santa Claus, there just has to be!  Who brings the toys?  Who eats the cookies?  Who smells the living room up like eggnog and rum the night before Christmas?  One year, I even saw him putting the presents under the tree!  

Professor Sqauwkins, I know you are a very smart man.  Could you tell me the truth, please?

Yours truly, Virginia

Well, this letter just tugged at my heart and I had to answer it, for Virginia and all the other children like her, who yearn for magic and are getting primed for religion, so I decided to answer her here:

You gullible little twit, there is almost certainly no such thing as Santa Claus. People might tell you that there is no way to disprove Santa Claus, but once you look at the evidence that something else is the cause of Santa-related phenomena, the likelihood that the fat man really exists becomes vanishingly small.

Haven’t you ever noticed the price tags, clearance aisle stickers and bar codes plastered all over the boxes of the toys you receive, or are you friggin blind?  Do you think that a North Pole workshop would bother putting those things on free toys?  Ever notice how broke your parents are right after Christmas–and how much more they drink?  Put two and two together, you stupid cow.  You look at these toys and say that “well, the toys are there, and something caused those toys to be there and we call that cause Santa Claus, but evidence and Occam’s Razor dictate that the simplest answer is probably the correct one; your drunken parents, you git.  Haven’t you ever peeked into your parent’s closet just before Christmas?

Look, you can compare the likelihood that a flying sleigh pulled by magic reindeer actually exists to the likelihood that a million slivers of wood and cheap brass thrown into the air would randomly self-assemble into a sleigh.  It could happen, but in practice it doesn’t.  Any idiot can see that.  And while it could be that there is an invisible, magical fat man that can somehow be everywhere at once (or as close to it that it hardly matters), it’s more probable that your dad rented a smelly old costume and ate a few cookies while allowing you to catch a peek, before killing a bottle and high-tailing it back to bed.

What about the man himself?  Santa Claus is just a cobbled-together collection of old Pagan fables and mythology ranging from the ancient Roman festivals that gave us gift giving and cookies to the Norse tales of Odin as a gift-giver who traveled around once a year on his many-legged horses, to the English tales of Father Christmas that grew out of the anonymous gift-giving of country Pastors, to similar tales from Scandinavia and nearby regions–all wrapped around the skeleton of Saint Nicholas…the original Santa Clause.  Their are so many fables propped up onto that flimsy frame, it’s no wonder Santa Claus is portrayed as fat.  When something that is supposed to be true has so many elements stolen from so many places and time periods, the only conclusion to reach is that the whole story is hogwash.

I mean, we would at the very least, be hearing sonic booms all morning long on Christmas as Santa Claus keeps breaking the sound barrier with his sleigh.  The absence of sonic booms is positive evidence for the non-existence of Santa Claus because they would have to be present if he existed.  Did you get that, or is it too complicated for your ass?

Then we have the testimony of millions of parents who have all come forward to tell us that they made the whole thing up and that they just pretended to be Santa Claus so they could make you happy once a year.  They say that it was just a harmless story and that if it gave a few kids some comfort, well, that’s a positive thing isn’t it?  If kids want to believe in Santa Claus, what’s wrong with that?

These parents exploit the trust and gullibility of their own children, just to have a force that enables them to have control over them and keep them in line.  “Do this or you won’t get any presents this year.”  “Don’t be ‘naughty’ (where naughty is anything a parent decides it to be and can change at any time).’  Parents take cruel advantage of a child’s trust and they pay no mind to the fear and psychological damage it causes, and the sense of deep betrayal should a child use his or her reason to come upon the truth.  They punish and persecute your older brother if he tries to tell you there is no Santa Claus and the parents of other children will punish and persecute them if they try to speak out.  Parents will call them ‘party-poopers’ or just plain mean, but don’t believe them!  Parental Santa apologists have had a long time to hone their words well, and use them as weapons against those who would use reason and demand evidence before they will accept something as true.

So no Virginia, you feeble fool.  Just because you cannot disprove the existence of Santa Claus, that doesn’t make him real, any more than the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, your favorite cartoon characters or cartoon cereal mascots, magic princesses, or any of the other silly things you believe in.  Magic sucks–reality is the only thing that is real, and obviously, putting my boot down on all your pet superstitions is the only thing I live for.

Professor Richard Sqauwkins

Professor Richard Sqauwkins, President of M.O.B. (Atheists for More Obnoxious Blogs), is the mean-spirited, black-hearted absolute ruler of all Atheists.  His heart was forged in the blackest pits of Hell and he clawed his way to the top of academia to become the Professor of Evolution on the backs of babies, women, puppy-dogs and fluffy bunny-rabbits.  His blood runs colder than Dante’s ninth circle, and he murdered the better angel of his nature.  There is nothing sacred that he wouldn’t spill his bile all over.  He’s an ‘intellectual.’  You have been warned…  

The 18 Million-Dollar Church & State Bitchslap:

Ken Ham’s Pet Ark project (known as the Ark Encounter; his proposed Noah’s Ark-based theme park under pseudo-construction in Kentucky, of all places) has hit a snag–the ‘museum’s’ hiring practices are clearly discriminatory and a violation of Federal Law because Ham insists on running it as a for-profit business (How some churchey-types just LOVE taking from Caesar).

ArkEncounter002
Pictured: Reality Credit: Ark Encounters

 

This minor detail has brought down the ire of both atheists, such as Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and secular/religious Church/State separation supporters, such as Americans United.  You see, Ham recently applied for a 18 million dollar tourism tax incentive, which was granted preliminary acceptance (how it got that far is scandalous enough, but Rev. Luther is drooling all over the keyboard at the possibilities).  Now, the Project’s proposal has been turned down.

The proposal went adrift because Ham and his fellow creationists forced potential new hires to sign a declaration of faith before they can climb aboard and set sail.  When the storm moved in, secular groups were forced to drop the anchor and try to make Ham walk the plank.

Ham, of course denies everything and insists that the religious oath was only meant for the non-profit part of the project–like designing the Ark, the religious object everyone is going to be looking at if this Turkey flies (boat ever gets christened?).  You can see some of the actual job postings over at Dan Arel’s Patheos blog, Danthropology.

In related news, the Ark Encounters website just ran a feature on a crocaduck.

Updates as the tide comes in.
C.A.A.C.A. got the story from Faith Street, http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/