Tim Wildmon, of the Christian hate-group the American Family Association, just published an on-line article titled “If Jesus had never been born…”

It’s an interesting hypothetical. The first thing that comes to mind is that we really don’t know if this person existed. The character created by the various authors of biblical mythology almost certainly didn’t exist. Water to wine; virgin birth; walking on water; healing the blind; etc. are all things of the imagination and are no different than any of the other supernatural and magical attributes that man has been applying to mythical characters since before writing. Gilgamesh, Beowulf, the Maya hero twins Hunahpu and Xbalanque, and so on.

But Wildmon’s article isn’t about a thought-experiment, it’s about delusion. In his delusion, the United States is a direct result of a mythical person named Jesus Christ. He begins, “[i]f Jesus Christ had never been born, you would not be reading this column [and] there would be no United States of America.”

Wildmon is, of course, flawed and falacious in his reasoning. His premise assumes the conclusion, which is that Jesus Christ did exist as described in biblical mythology. This is the same circular logic that causes religious nuts to believe in most biblical mythology as fact rather than the myth it actually is. To support his circular claims, Wildmon cites Pres. Truman’s address to the Attorney General’s Conference on Law Enforcement Problems in 1950. Truman said, The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days”^[1].

This couldn’t be further from the truth and, if one were to look at the documents involved (Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution), one would see that they in no way compare to the religious mythology either Wildmon or Truman refer to. In fact, biblical doctrines that Christians like to attribute to being the “foundation” of our great nation’s laws and government are down-right un-American. Leviticus alone is full of un-American dogma and doctrine: Rancher’s have a long, American tradition of raising a variety of cattle, the diversly planted victory garden is about as American as it gets, and the cotton-polyester blend is an American classic, but each of these is forbidden by Leviticus 19:19. The cruel and inhumane author of Leviticus was also unconcerned with national diversity and freedoms of speech and religion for death was the penalty for gays, adulterers (and their spouses!), and anyone who blasphemed his own particular notion of god.

But maybe Truman and Wildmon weren’t thinking of Leviticus. Surely they consider the Ten Commandments to be this “foundational” source for their own twisted idea of American origins. And yet when you compare, the American traditions and the 10 Commandments only share two out of ten things in common: don’t kill and don’t steal. Truman and Wildmon might as well attribute the Code of Hammurabi to “fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights.” In fact, the Code of Hammurabi is a much closer match to a potential origin of our Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution). The CoH provides for due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to present evidence, and some references to religious freedom (biblical mythology is very bigoted in this regard).

So Wildmon (and, by extension, Truman) are both flat out wrong about America being founded by Christian mythology. I challenge any one who thinks they are well-versed in this mythology to show where American Founding documents (Constitution/Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, etc.) are directly produced from Christian doctrine.

Wildmon continues with his failed article: “[i]f Jesus Christ had never been born, obviously, there would be no Christmas celebration or even a “holiday season.”

I think he’s wrong again. The Christian celebration of the alleged birth of Jesus (again, his premise assumes the conclusion) was intended by early cult leaders to replace pagan celebrations of the winter solstice. We can still see the remnants of this celebration in our modern representations of Christmas: holy, the tree, yule logs, etc. Had early cult leaders not claimed Jesus was born (he may or may not have been), we would still have a holiday season. It would simply be a celebration more obviously based on the Solstice.

Wildmon’s attempt here is to claim that Christmas is about Jesus… for some that may be true. But for most, it’s about family, children, world peace, love, giving, getting, eating, and so on. It’s a moment of social embrace where a family or even a community can come together and remind each that even though they have separate lives, they still have a common purpose. The season was always a celebration that we’ve reached the shortest day of the year and we’re about to embark on longer days ahead -we made it! Christians can do whatever the hell they want on Christmas: pray, go to mass, worship little barns with infants, whatever. They even have the right to bitch and moan that the rest of us just like the holly, mistletoe, snowmen, snowflakes, holiday trees (not a single religious ornament), reindeer, santas, and so on.

The axial tilt: it’s the real reason for the season.

1. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13707#ixzz1hPtCYv7d

Image via Wikipedia

I was thinking of whether or not to write a Christmas post and what I might write… then I  thought, “hmm… what have I written in the past?”

Here are some of my past Christmas related posts:

The So-Called War on Xmas. Uh… I Mean Christmas (12/7/07)

The Christian Who Stole the Grinch (12/13/10)

So-Called War on Xmas: AFA & Costco on the Frontline (12/14/08)

The Christian Candy Cane Lie (12/25/08)

Related articles

• Why Do Christians Have A War On Our Christmas? (truelogic.wordpress.com)
• The Christmas War on Atheism: What’s the Religious Right Whining About When It’s Really Non-Believers Who Are Under Attack? (alwaysquestionauthority.wordpress.com)
• Churches Admit They’ve Lost ‘War on Christmas’ by Canceling Christmas Day Services [Christmas] (jezebel.com)

…but not for the reasons you might think

The Giving USA Foundation published a report in 2010^[1] that concluded about $227 billion was donated to charity by individual Americans in 2009. The donations went to religion, education, human services, health, the arts, etc.

In the recent few years, several pundits have made a big to-do about how it is that it’s the religious that give the most to charity, leaving the secular, including atheists, as the less-caring, less-likely to do good for their neighbors. The “Atheism Sucks” blog writes:

conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.^[2]

And he’s citing Brooks from 2006^[3] in case anyone was curious.

But, luckily, real science has been done on the matter and the nature of charitable giving was examined as it correlates to political ideology. Previous arguments by Brooks and the anti-atheist blogger above, which make partially researched claims that conservative politics drives people to be more giving are not supported in light of evidence gathered by more careful methodology.

The authors of a more recent study that used this more careful methodology examined three separate philanthropic outcomes: donation to congregations, donations to noncongregational religious organizations and donations to noncongregational secular organziations.

And it’s true: the non-religious give less than the religious, even to secular charities.

But not for the reasons they (the religious-conservatives) want us to believe!

What religious-conservatives want everyone to believe is that generosity is a result of their politics and their religious ideologies. But what this more complete research indicates very strongly is that habits and practice are what drive charitable giving. Not ideology. When the controls used are just net of income and demographics, conservatives clearly give more to religious causes. But when one, single, additional variable is added, this changes the results drastically. And that variable is religious attendance. The researchers found that it sufficiently explained the statistical significance between liberals and conservatives in previous studies that omitted the variable.

Along with religious attendence, the addition of attending political meetings and other political activities also affected the results, lowering the statistical significance with the addition of each additional variable.

What this means is that it isn’t ideology driving charitable giving. It’s practice. In other words, the person who attends religious and civic meetings is being presented with opportunities to give to charities. Even Brooks agrees that charitable giving is habitual and learned through practice^[4]. Where the authors and Brooks differ is in what part conservative political ideology has in the process. Brooks sees religious people as being more likely to be politically conservative, but the authors show this isn’t a variable that is as necessary to explain charitable giving as civic participation in general.

So what’s this mean for atheists?

It means, as we get more and more organized, as we are, our rates of charitable giving will increase. The good news is, that it will likely be for secular (and, thus, more likely to be important) causes. One thing that I noticed from the study is that the religious are most likely to donate to themselves. While there are definitely religious charities that do good work, I’m not convinced, by a long shot, that they are either generally as effective or as efficient as their secular counterparts.

As humanity continues to break the spell of religious affliction, we’ll continue to participate in social activities that create habits of giving. Secular student organizations, atheist meet-ups, and other non-religious groups that are increasing in size each year show this to be the case. I’m scheduled to pick up trash in the Adopt-a-Highway program and participate in a blood drive in the next 30 days… both due to atheist/secular civic and social participation. And groups like ours inlcude charities in our communications, announcements, and oral presentations in much the same way Church attendees get.

But even if the religious continue to always give more than the non-religious to charities because they were religious (and it isn’t this way at all) it still wouldn’t demonstrate that the religious were right about their beliefs and superstitions.

For a list of good, secular causes to donate to, click this link: Secular Charities.

References

Brooks, Arthur C. (2003). Religious faith and charitable giving. Policy Review 121(October):39–50.

Brooks, Arthur C. (2006). Who really cares: The surprising truth about compassionate conservatism. New York : Basic Books.

Giving USA Foundation (2010). Giving USA 2010. Indianapolis, IN: Giving USA Foundation: Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

Vaidyanathan, Brandon, Jonathan P. Hill, and Christian Smith (2011). Religion and Charitable Financial Giving to Religious and Secular Causes: Does Political Ideology Matter? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(3), pp. 450-469.

1. Giving USA Foundation. 2010. Giving USA 2010. Indianapolis, IN: Giving USA Foundation: Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.
2. http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2006/11/study-proves-conservative-christians.html
3. Brooks, Arthur C.. 2006. Who really cares: The surprising truth about compassionate conservatism. New York : Basic Books.
4. Brooks, Arthur C. 2003. Religious faith and charitable giving. Policy Review 121(October):39–50.
   

By now, everyone in the Atheosphere has heard of pastor Michael Stahl, the numbnuts that wants to create a registry for atheists, comparing us to terrorists, the KKK, child molesters, and Lady Gaga. Okay, I made up the part about Lady Gaga.

But I thought I’d share this video by The Thinking Atheist. The quality is top-notch and the message is spot on.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Stahl’s blog is now “by invite only” -no surprise since his traffic probably put his comments through the roof. And I’m sure he doesn’t want atheists reading his “plans.” As if we really give a shit.

But he’s quoted as saying:

“I mean, think about it. There are already National Registrys [sic] for convicted sex offenders, ex-convicts, terrorist cells, hate groups like the KKK, skinheads, radical Islamists, etc..” Stahl writes. “This type of ‘National Registry’ would merely be for information purposes.”

And he recently started providing email lists of atheists that have sent him emails to christians to do with as they wish^[1].

I almost wish a national registry of atheists would get created for Christians. I think the shear number of atheists and the surprise of who were actually atheists would stagger the minds of many Christians enough that they’d have to think about why there were so many people who didn’t think as they do. People these Christians previously thought were one of them if based just on how they acted: good.

But I did say “almost.” This is evidence that there are Christians (as well as probably Muslims and other faiths) that are so bigoted and steeped in their delusions that they perceive atheists as a threat to be met with harshly. This is precisely the reason why atheists need to continue to be vocal and active.

Related articles

• Florida Pastor Calls For An Atheist Registry, Media Points And Laughs (mediaite.com)
• Pastor Mike Stahl’s ‘National Atheist Registry’ Is Nothing New (patheos.com)
• Pastor Proposes National Atheist Registry To Better Track Godless Citizens (jonathanturley.org)
• Atheists and Sex Offenders (via DoctorE) (danmc666.wordpress.com)

1. http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/09/atheist_national_registry_pastor_mike_stahl_sharing_emails.php

The pastor of a Dallas, TX church started a website called Grinchalert.com in which the ignorant can list businesses they feel have “offended” their superstition by not saying the word “christmas” in a greeting or holiday banner.

You really have to look on with utter fascination as the ignorant profess their dismay at being told “happy holidays” instead of “merry xmas.” The culture of O’Reilly / AM talk radio nutters see omission of their superstition and acknowledgement of the multiple holidays that exist in the 30 or so days surrounding the winter solstice as a “war” on their superstition. It’s largely a one-sided war, fought in their own minds, but the more they rant on about it, the more rational people should smack them back down.

Here’s the irony: many of these “naughty” listed businesses were discovered in the course of these good christians participating in the whole commercialized aspect of the holiday. They were xmas shopping! And the good pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas co-opted the name of one of the most secular symbols of xmas: Dr. Seuss’ Grinch. The Santa-pretender who discovered the true meaning of xmas, which was to give not get.

Not a word in Whoville about the baby Jebus.

The naughty list is a good guide for secular shoppers. Apparently Target is a good place to take your money since you won’t have to be bothered with all that nativity shit. Give me my snowmen, snowflakes, Santas and garland. Keep those non-xmas, tropical decorations of camels and palm trees and little barnyard scenes. Ugh.

Funny comment from Rockwall, TX about Rockwall Independent School District: “They won’t let anybody say Marry Christmas.”

Nor, apparently, do they do a good job of teaching how to spell. For shame Rockwall.

Related articles

• Grinch Brings Christmas Cheer to the Dallas Winspear Opera House (iliveindallas.com)
• Megachurch Launches Website for Public Flogging of ‘Grinches’ [Religion] (gawker.com)
• Dr. Seuss is Weeping (unreasonablefaith.com)
• Determined to Have a War on Christmas (atheistrev.com)
• I Can Do Without Tradition (atheistrev.com)
• Christian Calls Islam a Superstition (atheistrev.com)

An a clear indication that Christian schools should have better oversight and accountability. Or banned as the cult centers they truly are.

This school, run by at least one sexual pervert, has 89 students from grades 7-12.

The video was making its rounds on the net, but the story must have been rather old judging by the dates on the funny comments at this site for user reviews.

Related articles

• Why is there always a pastor involved in my stories? (mojoey.blogspot.com)
• Police investigate teacher at Christian School (mojoey.blogspot.com)
• Music Teacher At Christian School Accused Of Molesting Teen Student (dreamindemon.com)
• Christian schools lose appeal bid in UC case (sfgate.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Rationally, a degree in theology is of no honest use. Of course, there’s a dishonest use for such an “achievement,” but I can think of zero utility that obtaining a theological degree would have for anyone.

Theology is the study of religion and religious practice and experience. But not in any useful sense since it’s specifically the study of God from an assumption that this God actually exists. In theory, one could have a theology for any god that man has invented through time. There are Islamic and Hindu theologies. Many universities offer “degrees” in theology, particularly those universities that were founded with religion at the forefront. Notre Dame has a Department of Theology. You can earn a “doctorate” in theology, tack a clever Ph.D. after your name and forever more demand that friends and acquaintances refer to you as “Dr. This” or “Dr. That.”

As a doctoral student at Notre Dame, you will be mentored by world-class scholars, access vast research and learning opportunities, and experience depth and diversity in curricula and communities. The Doctoral Program places a very high percentage of its graduates in academic positions, the vast majority of those in tenure-track positions.

“Vast research” and “tenure-track positions.”

What can you do with a Ph.D. in theology?

Apparently teach more people about “theology.” Or preach. Or write books about “theology.”

But you’re still less qualified to flip burgers at McDonald’s than a high school drop out. You can’t create anything of utility (architecture, printed circuit designs, new polymer plastics, new computer operating systems, etc.). You can’t discover anything real about the world -about the actual history of humanity and life on the planet with any meaningful (to reality) sense.

You’re stuck being a minister, pastor, “theologian,” professor of “theology,” writer, or some other low-skilled position. I can hear the objections: “but writers have skillz!”

Definitely. But if all you’re writing about is what you know…

So what happens to theologians who grow up, realize they wasted hundreds of hours of their youth, thousands of dollars, and have little to show for it? You resort to cognitive dissonance, compartmentalize and rationalize your “theological” worldview -tell yourself over and over your beliefs are real, valid, and worth the above expenses, and shout down anyone that says otherwise.

It’s a tough world out there. Suddenly you come to your senses, you have a “theological degree” and you’ve got a decent-paying gig as a minister, a wife and 2.5 kids, dog, mortgage, two car payments, credit card bills…. You can be honest and say, “you know what? I’ve been lying to myself and the congregation all this time! I can’t believe this superstitious mumbo-jumbo about resurrections, virgin births, transubstatiation, and zombie messiahs anymore. Guys… I’m an atheist.”

You’d also be unemployed and discovering that your burger-flipping skills need work.

“Dr.” West at Zingliusredivivus had this to say about a recent “atheist minister” story run by ABCNews yesterday:

There’s only one reason an atheist would be a minister or an unbelieving minister would remain in his pastoral office- money.  M-O-N-E-Y.  Fearful of the job search, the ‘pastor’ who doesn’t believe is the most profound of all hypocrites. [...] Cowards … and liars too and unworthy of any sort of respect.

I agree with the beginning of his quotes above. Money is a powerful and valid motivator. And it is hypocritical to pretend belief. But no more dishonest than those that pretend to study “theology” and claim they have some sort of genuine academic standing. Liars? Sure. But so is the holder of the Ph.D. in “theology.” The difference between them and the atheist ministers mentioned in the story is that the latter are at least honest with themselves.

“Theology” is no more significant or important than “fairyology.” Or, as Thomas Paine put it, “[t]he study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.”

The study of “theology” reminds me of those guys that sit around studying Klingon language and customs, or people who play Dungeons and Dragons. But only to a point since, generally speaking, these good folk don’t truly believe they are Klingons or Wizard Elves.

Every once in a while, Jimbo seems to get rubbed the wrong way by an atheist or atheism -perhaps it threatens his own worldview (that cognitive dissonance again)- and he has to write something scathing to ridicule or belittle those who hold a more rational perspective than he. In fact, that’s how I discovered his little blog. He declared the war.

Related articles

• Relevance of Theology (findingforrest.com)
• Journal of Religious & Theological Information (www-rohan.sdsu.edu)
• The sleepwalking faithful (mojoey.blogspot.com)

Atheists come in all stripes. Chances are that if you’re a religious person, even a deeply, devoutly religious person who rarely has a kind word to say about atheists in general, you know an atheist whom you would consider trustworthy and respectable. And you probably don’t even realize it.

Most atheists don’t make their atheism the focus of their existence. Not in the way the religious so often do. We eat lunch with our religious friends, pausing our conversations to allow them to finish their quick, gratuitous prayer before eating their turkey sandwich.  We nod and smile when our religious friends reply that they are “truly blessed” when we ask them how their weekend was. We pay little attention to the little New Testament, or sometimes the bigger Holy Bible, that sits openly on the desk in the offices of our religious friends. And we generally don’t discuss religion and religious views with most of our religious friends.

I suspect my religious friends know I’m an atheist. In fact, I’m sure some of them do. On occasion, one or two of these friends are curious enough to ask about my position on their god. I try not to avoid the topic if it comes up, but I also try to present my views respectfully, with an understanding that if I don’t, I probably won’t get them to hear what I’m saying.

But most of my religious friends don’t have a clue about my atheism. I suspect that, if the true number of atheists among the religious in their day-to-day lives were obvious, it would change the perspectives of the religious. If suddenly all atheists were to have scarlet red A’s tattooed on the back of the very hands that shake those of the religious, what would be their reaction to knowing just how many and who were atheist among them?

It shouldn’t matter, of course. We atheists can usually spot the religious. There’s something about religion that makes public display of piety a necessity to many (a similar drive exists among atheists to varied degrees, so this is very likely a psychological need not a religious one. Even I cannot resist a Darwin fish and an Out Campaign sticker on my car).

Here are a couple of videos by CaloyAurellano and iPodAddict181 that demonstrate that atheists truly come in all stripes and are often trusted/respected by the religious.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Order of appearance: Sergey Brin – President and co-founder of Google; Larry Page – CEO and co-founder of Google; Vincent Van Gogh – Dutch painter; Benjamin Franklin – Inventor Democratis – Founder of modern Democracy; Stephen Hawking – Theoretical physicist; Thomas Paine – English revolutionary; Ernest Hemingway – American writer; Robert Frost – Poet; Bill Gates – Founder of Microsoft; Leo Blair – Former Prime Minister of the UK, father of Tony Blair; Lance Armstrong – Professional athlete; Bertrand Russell – English intellectual; Dr. Richard Dawkins – Professor at Oxford and UC Berkeley; Clarance Darrow – Lawyer, leading ACLU member; Charles Darwin – English naturalist; George Orwell – English journalist and writer; Mark Zuckerberg – Founder and CEO of Facebook; Kurt Vonnegut – Writer; Dr. Jerry A. Coynes – Professor at University of Chicago, leading biologist; Billy Joel – American musician; James Madison – US president; Helen Keller – American activist; Ron Reagan – Journalist, son of former US president Ronald Reagan; Warren Buffet – American investor; Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) – American writer; Galileo Gallelli – Astronomer; Karl Marx – Founder of Marxism; Linus Torvalds – Creator of the Linux kernel; Woody Allen – American comedian; Andrew Carnegie – American businessman; William Howard Taft – US president; Thomas Edison – Inventor; Steve Wozniak – Co-founder of Apple Computer; Voltaire – French enlightenment writer; Susan B. Anthony – American suffragist; Albert Einstein – German mathematician, philosopher, and genius; Margret Sanger – American activist

Related articles by Zemanta

• An Atheist runs for congress (mojoey.blogspot.com)
• The Pope has landed, immediately recites anti-atheist canard (scienceblogs.com)
• Taking Back America for Atheists (atheistrev.com)
• Atheists Helping the Homeless (#16) (friendlyatheist.com)

Christians have been burning books since before Gutenberg sorted out moveable type. The Library of Alexandria was ordered to be destroyed by a Christian bishop in 391. The same assholes murdered Hypatia, one of the most intellectual philosophers and mathematicians of her time. Why? Because she was woman who didn’t believe as they.

Before that, the Library of Antioch was burned by Christian emperor Jovian. Why? Because Jovian’s predecessor established the library and filled it with texts that didn’t jive with Jovian’s superstitions.

Lest we go on thinking Christians only burn the books of those who aren’t Christian, we must consider that poor sod Priscillian of Avila who was brutally executed as a heretic, his writings nearly all destroyed -burned by his fellow Christians. It seems he didn’t believe as they did.

The church council of Soissons, France, in 1121, forced Peter Abelard to burn his own book! Another Christian heretic oppressed by other Christians with apparently more right to think as they did than Abelard had to think as he did. At least they didn’t murder him. They just locked him in a convent for good.

The first ever Inquisitor General of Spain (c. 1480) promoted the burning of non-catholic texts (written by people who don’t think as Christians do).

But surely Christians were satisfied with the books of Europe, right?

Wrong. Diego de Landa, the Christian bishop who spread his superstitions to the New World (along with syphilis, TB, small pox, etc.) burned the few books ever written in the Americas by non-Europeans at the time. Lost forever to academia are the sacred texts of the Maya along with many of their images and cult items. The worship of a non-white, bearded god like Quetzacoatl is clearly not thinking like a Christian.

And it goes on and on. Through all of Christian history. To as recent as 2009 in North Carolina, USA where pastor Marc Grizzard of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church had a book burning on Halloween. Grizzard burned books by the likes of T.D. Jakes and Billy Graham -Christians! Why? You guessed it: they didn’t think like Grizzard and his particular notion of Christianity.

Hey, Christians aren’t the only book burners in history. Not by a long shot. But the do it so well. And, when Jim West at Zwinglius Redivivus says the nuts at Dove Outreach Center in Florida aren’t “true Christians,” I’d have to disagree. They’re completely consistent with Christianity so far.

These particular Christians are hatemongers (something else not inconsistent with Christianity through history) who are very likely going to provoke extremist Muslims (also no strangers to hatemongering). But burning korans (or even bibles) is their right to free speech. Personally, I find it despicable and depraved. Despicable because books ought not be burned but read; depraved because these Christians deify and anthropomorphize the book itself with a power it truly doesn’t have.

But, such is to be expected from the superstitious.

Oh, and to Jim West, just remember: no true Scotsman would…

Related articles by Zemanta

• (9/2010) Burning Books: Thoughts Without Thinking (basilandspice.com)
• Burn the Qu’ran Day (dickstersrandomthoughts.com)
• On Book Burnings (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• CNN Features Battle of the Idiots (atheistrev.com)

That’s what a friend of mine used to say when anyone else would just say, “WTF?” He would say, “that makes about as much sense as two dead flies.”

And that was my first thought when I watched Michael Voris’ video called “Angry Atheists.” This video goes on about how he was slandered and called dirty names (I’m betting “batshit” was among them) after he called for a “Catholic Monarchy” to replace Western government. In this video, he claims to be “clarifying” what it is he actually meant. In this video he says:

“Western civilization would be better off if it were a Catholic monarchy. How this comes about I don’t know. The point wasn’t to publicize a battle plan for overthrowing the secular humanist government. It was to point out that we are already living under a dictatorship. The dictatorship of relativism.”

And he complained incessantly about the “sad sack boo birds” who ridiculed this idea using vile, profane words. “Foul-mouthed, Catholic-bashing, invective-filled, hate speech” is what he called it. I guess some people just don’t like the idea of giving up democracy for a monarchy… He kept referring to his earlier video, so I looked for it. It was “removed by the user.” Apparently he started by censoring the comments. Then closing comments altogether. Then he removed the video (coward).

But, a quick Google search landed the mirrored copy I knew would be there. The atheosphere is dependable in that regard: someone is always ready to make internet faux pas of mad-hater Christians as forever as herpes.

Yipes! That guy truly is batshit!

His complaint begins with how “everyone gets to vote.” He points out that there are informed voters and there are “ignorant” voters. But he doesn’t really get the distinction right. For Voris, an “informed” voter is one that votes for things Voris agrees with. “Ignorant” voters are those that vote differently. For Voris, they’re obviously ignorant if they don’t think like he does. And he goes on to say that, if we’re going to insist on a voting system, then “only virtuous people” should be allowed to vote. Only Catholics would be considered virtuous to Voris -he makes this clear in his batshit rant.

In 2009, Catholics comprised 22% of the United States population. Voris proposes to have 78% of the population (using 2009 statistics) be ruled by 22%.

Bugs Bunny said it best: “What a maroon!”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Democracy leads us into a vortex of self-destruction! (scienceblogs.com)
• Catholic TV Host: It’s Time To End Democracy, Install Catholic Dictatorship (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Dead Flies (alwaysbcmom.com)
• A Strong Video Message from Michael Voris: Where are the Bishops? (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)