I think overly sensitive Christians need to re-examine what they define as hate speech. Political hopeful William J. Kelly is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, saying that a sign erected by the Freedom from Religion Foundation in the Illinois Capital Building is hate speech:

At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

Kelly thinks this is dispariging toward Christianity and other religions in general, and is suing Jesse White, the Secretary of State for Illinois (who is responsible for enforcing the state’s property laws). It’s becoming quite clear, however, that this is a politically motivated action rather than an honest concern about “hate speech”. He’s hoping to rally Christians around him, and I’m sure he’ll have plenty of success; after all, the recent confidence  previously silent atheists are displaying scares the hell out of them, and some people are looking for any excuse to fight the progress we’ve been making.

So what we can gather from this lawsuit is that anytime you suggest that religion is merely a superstition, you are effectively committing a hate crime. Is Kelly unaware of the concept of freedom of speech or is he merely afraid of it? Why do religions fear dissension so much? Do they correctly see that once people are exposed to the fact that religions are merely the product of superstition and ignorance that they might abandon them? If they get to remove the sign from the Capitol Building, does that mean we get to expunge “In God We Trust” from their money too?

Spread the outrage

It looks like anti-abortion activists are getting a little crazier every day. The recent conviction of Scott Roeder, who gunned down Dr. George Tiller just about a year ago, has apparently rallied religious nutjobs who think that killing doctors who perform abortions is a heroic act. They are upset that he was found guilty, which makes me wonder what connection they have with reality. I’m not sure what they were expecting exactly; did they think his defense (that he had no choice but to use deadly force to “save babies”) would work?

What scares me the most is the type of rhetoric anti-choice activists use when talking about abortions. Sure, lots of groups say they distance themselves from violent tactics, but the truth is that there’s usually a mixed message coming from these organizations regarding the use of violence. Take Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue saying that more violence was inevitable:

“The blood of these babies slain by Tiller is crying for vengeance,”

Is that what a terminated fetus is doing in heaven? Crying for the murder of the doctor who performed operations usually meant to save the life of the mother? For such innocent creatures, they sure are vengeful! Maybe (just maybe) the only ones crying for violence are religious wackos who have a tenuous grip with reality.

Spread the outrage

I tried putting a copy of “The Passion of the Christ” and it exploded in my face!

(props to Gavin for the find)

Spread the outrage

Apparently the Home Office in Great Britain has money to burn, as they’ve just given the Christian Police Association £10,000 (or about $16,000) to help their campaign aimed at getting the public to pray to help prevent crime. They are already claiming that the program, which they’ve already initiated, is having some major success:

In one particular area, an officer was investigating an incident but he had not been able to apprehend a suspect. He encouraged a church to pray for him and within days a suspect had been arrested and charged.

In another area, an officer encouraged churches to pray about domestic burglary and over the year it came down by 30 per cent. We do not discount good police work, which is why we call it circumstantial evidence.

You have to love the faithful; any time there’s a study done that proves that prayer does exactly jack-shit (and jack left town), they completely ignore it, no matter what the evidence is. It’s plainly obvious to everyone else that talking to your invisible friend doesn’t do more than bring a sense of comfort for the delusional, let alone “solve crime”. Could the 30 percent reduction is domestic burglary be possibly related to the crime rate falling in the UK for the past few years (the government reports a simultaneous increase in illicit drug use; am I to assume using their logic that using drugs prevents crime?) Where did these clowns graduate from: Police Academy 5?

Is it too much to as that governments not spend their taxpayers hard-earned money on nonsense?

Spread the outrage

It’s now official; parents need to stay the fuck out of the educational system. How else are we supposed to react when one of these people gets the expanded version of Anne Frank’s Diary banned for containing a short passage making reference to the vagina?

There are little folds of skin all over the place, you can hardly find it. The little hole underneath is so terribly small that I simply can’t imagine how a man can get in there, let alone how a whole baby can get out!

Originally Anne’s father had taken out some of her passages from the diary, presumably out of fear that Anne’s frankness (is this considered a tasteless pun?) would be too much for students to handle. I guess he was right, since it took only one complaint for school officials to cave.

Hey, I get it; when you have kids, your brain gets a little bit rattled (in fact, during the late stages of pregnancy, a woman’s brain will temporarily shrink for a little while). It doesn’t help that these defenseless whelps need your constant attention not to die. Eventually, however, you have to accept the fact that the wider world is out there for them to explore, and losing your shit every time a sexual organ is being discussed is a serious over-reaction on the part of parents with bigger hearts than brains.

Jim Allen, the director of instruction at Culpeper County public school had this to say about the situation:

“I’m happy when parents get involved with these things because it lets me know that they are really looking and have their kids’ best interest (in mind). And that’s where good parenting and good teaching comes in.”

Does good parenting involve banning books because of innocent references to private parts? How is this good teaching as well? It’s quite literally the opposite of that, moron.

(props to Lucy for the find)

Spread the outrage