A bigger snake oil salesman than Andreas Moritz

Posted on December 16, 2009 by Michael

Filed under: Humor, News | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

Reporter fired for responding to pro-gay press release

Posted on December 16, 2009 by Michael

Of course the Bible Brigade is going to jump on this as Christian martyrdom, but the evidence doesn’t bear that out.

Grard was fired by Bill Thompson, editor of the Sentinel and its sister paper the Kennebec Journal in Augusta, shortly after the Nov. 3 election in which Maine voters repealed a same-sex marriage law approved by the Legislature. Grard said he arrived at work the morning after the vote to find an e-mailed press release from the Human Rights Campaign in Washington, D.C., that blamed the outcome of the balloting on hatred of gays.

Grard, who said he’d gotten no sleep the night before, used his own e-mail to send a response.

This is an obviously weak reason to fire anyone, much less an employee of 18 years (note: I heard 17 in an interview on the radio with Grard). The guy has no prior reprimands or anything else on his record. It would seem a massive over reaction by Bill Thompson.

I suspect the failings of the piss-poor newspapers in Maine is the big factor in all this: they need to cut expenses, so firing a long time employee with one of the surely higher salaries is one way to do it. But that isn’t to say the specifics of the incident are irrelevant. Grard shouldn’t have been responding to a press release from work, so he should get slapped around a little for that, but fired? Sure, he represented his employer unprofessionally, but so does the construction worker who doesn’t wear a belt. There needs to be some perspective here.

“They said the Yes-on-1 people were haters. I’m a Christian. I take offense at that,” he said. “I e-mailed them back and said basically, ‘We’re not the ones doing the hating. You’re the ones doing the hating.’”

Offense? That’s it? Grard should feel shame over his prideful bigotry. He’s an ignorant mook who doesn’t want a group to have rights, and he has no interest (or ability) to show how that group having rights would infringe upon his own rights. That’s the definition of a bigot. Reality is a bitch like that. But I would be more amenable to an argument that directly said he should be fired over his bigotry. That isn’t to say I would buy into it – I wouldn’t advocate firing a racist who was able to avoid adversely affecting his job (or the jobs of his coworkers) – but it would be more convincing than the one Bill Thompson is giving.

And of course the Yes on 1 bigots are the ones doing the hating – they aren’t even hiding it! The argument that wretched side put forth all summer and fall long was that homosexuality was a bad thing. (Oh, but not homosexuals! It’s just the key defining attribute of certain people they hate, not the people themselves! Scoff.) Their sole/soul (hardy-har!) motivation was that a harmless action between two consenting adults is evil, personal liberties be god damned. I would love to see the paltry response Grard had to offer up in defense. Perhaps someone can enlighten me – who, exactly, was trying to take away Grard’s or anyone else’s rights? Anyone? Bueller? …Bueller?

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Another letter

Posted on December 14, 2009 by Michael

The Kennebec Journal (KJ) has done what has become rare and published something which is full of sense and science: a letter by me.

Naturopathic medicine is pure bull.

Let’s not beat around the bush on this one. Those who practice naturopathy are quacks. They may be sincere quacks, but sincerity does not translate to evidence — or your health.

The Ontario legislature is considering giving naturopathic “doctors” prescription rights. This presents a serious danger to the health of any Canadian ignorant enough to be duped into the “care” of these charlatans.

But it hits closer to home than that. Maine is just one of several states that give these vastly underqualified “doctors” such rights. This presents a serious risk. They have no relevant medical training for offering prescriptions; this makes them highly susceptible to blindly doling out contra-indicated drugs, among other dangerous possibilities.

I cannot overstate this fact: Naturopaths are not doctors and they are not qualified.

They cherry-pick evidence, often lie and misrepresent facts.

Recently, a local naturopathic “doctor,” Christopher Maloney, wrote a letter in which he committed himself to that third possibility. He implied H1N1 vaccination properties for black elderberry. The only relevant studies on black elderberry are for the regular flu, do not show vaccination properties, and far larger studies are needed (as noted by the original researchers).

I implore anyone considering naturopathic “medicine” to not do it and/or cross-check Maloney’s “facts.” Naturopathy is not a science in any sense of the word; it is not to be trusted.

A long laundry list countering false naturopathic claims can be found at the qualified page Terra Sig on http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2009/11/more_naturopathic_nonsense_in.php

If everyone began to demand evidence, we could do away with this naturopathic “medicine” malarkey. We’d be all the safer for it.

Michael Hawkins

Augusta

withoutapologyinmaine@gmail.com

I’m glad I was able to sneak that email address in there. Without Apology is my publication and the sister site to FTSOS. That little advertisement is probably the best I can do there since I’m sure the KJ won’t let me link back to myself.

Anyway.

I don’t know if it was because I recently laid out a short summary of the sort of antics this paper has been playing (and then subsequently emailed the link the head honcho), but it took me some time to get this letter published. I originally wanted a much more comprehensive letter published, but Jim Evans lied to me and wouldn’t admit that libel was his concern, so I settled for a pro-atheism letter. Seeing through Evans’ lies, I rewrote my letter so that I could call Maloney a charlatan without directly saying it and submitted that. And then resubmitted it. And again. It looks like persistence won the day. (And that’s fortunate for Evans because once finals were over I planned on paying him a personal visit to get him to just tell me the truth. I mean, goodness. Just say what you mean.)

In the comment section of this letter, “homesteps” of Chelsea speaks of his/her experience being treated by Maloney. S/he says this.

Chris is very good at looking at factors that may impact mysterious conditions. He helps patients with food diaries and elimination diets. He encourages them to embrace an all-around healthier lifestyle. On top of these qualities, he is focused on finding the true underlying problems and treating the whole patient. He often recommends that people see their regular medical doctors, as he recognizes the limitations of any one-size-fits-all approach. He is one of the most caring doctors we have been to.

Maloney is NOT a doctor by any reasonable measures – and Maine’s measures are not reasonable! He has NO qualifications which earn him that title beyond the state’s bogus measurements!** It’s all fine and dandy if someone wants to waste money on someone telling them to not eat crappy foods* (should I be charging you readers for that nugget of advice?), but let’s not pretend that these people are actually qualified to be doling out medical advice. As I note in my letter, people run the risk of taking contra-indicated drugs if we start treating naturopaths as real doctors.

*I’m not disparaging true nutritionists or implying that their advice is a waste. My comment is more specific; think of going up to some random schlub on the street and asking him for dietary advice. He may rightly tell you that eating a lot of trans fat is bad for you, but that doesn’t mean that he has done anything to earn payment from you.

**Maloney whined to WordPress to make me change this. I originally said he was not a doctor at all. Under the technicality of Maine law, he is a doctor. But he’s a dangerous one because he lies about the efficacy of treatments to suit his purposes. And, again, he is not allowed to practice naturopathy in two states.

Filed under: News, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Hubble gazes deeper than ever

Posted on December 9, 2009 by Michael

Since being recently serviced, Hubble has taken one of the most stunning and deep images yet.

NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has made the deepest image of the universe ever taken in near-infrared light. The faintest and reddest objects in the image are galaxies that formed 600 million years after the Big Bang. No galaxies have been seen before at such early times. The new deep view also provides insights into how galaxies grew in their formative years early in the universe’s history.

Sorry for the graphics. I wanted to post the largest version I could find and this was it. An even larger image is available here.

Filed under: Astronomy/Cosmology/Physics, News | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Christian ‘Science’ again

Posted on December 9, 2009 by Michael

Seth Johnson is back in the local paper. I’ve responded to his nonsense in the past, but he keeps on going. My recent letter supporting atheism was published within the past 30 days, so I am not able to send in another letter to make sure people don’t buy into this Christian Science malarkey, so FTSOS will have to do. Here is the letter.

I’d like to respond to the article “‘Spiritual health care’ advocates seeking inclusion in legislation” which appeared on Nov. 27.

The Christian Science church has asked Congress to include a provision so that insurance companies do not discriminate against people who choose spiritual care to meet their health-care needs. The federal government will not be “paying for prayer.” The intent is to allow people who pay in to private insurance to get the care they find effective.

Many people have found spiritual care, such as Christian Science, to be reliable and affordable in meeting their health-care needs for many generations. Individuals pay for this form of treatment as a professional service. Payments go directly to Christian Science practitioners, or full-time healers, who are self-employed and receive no compensation from the church. It’s their only livelihood.

The legislative provision under consideration does not change child protection laws.

That being said, is spiritual care safe for children? Parents are required by law to provide proper health care to children, and the Christian Science church fully supports laws that require parents to act responsibly and provide good care. If families use spiritual care with their children, it must be done responsibly and with good results.

Also, this provision is not trying to put spiritual care on the same level as medical care. It is only about what private insurance companies decide to cover in their policies.

Everyone should receive good health care. In the current debate about mandating health insurance, methods of proven effective treatment should be made available to the public.

Seth Johnson

Christian Science Committee on Publication for Maine

Falmouth

As usual, a pusher of bad medicine isn’t being entirely forthcoming. The inclusion of Christian Science in the health care bill would require insurance companies to consider covering “religious and spiritual healthcare”. Such a requirement (even if it’s only a requirement of consideration) is obviously unconstitutional. Perhaps more important, however, is the fact that these anti-medical faith-heads don’t have a shred of evidence which suggests that anything they do actually works.

I mean, goodness, is that so much for people to ask? Just offer us some actual experiments, some studies, some tests. Give us something which can actually be discussed. Right now all we’re seeing is a bunch of malarkey which appeals to nothing but faith and placebo effects. It’s ludicrous that anyone could support this rubbish.

On a separate note, the Kennebec Journal (the paper in which the letter appeared) is showing itself to have a favoritism toward this anti-science nonsense. First it goes out of its way to offer extra space and apologetics to some naturopathic quack at the end of a letter, then it refuses to publish letters critical of that sort of junk, going so far as to lie about why they won’t publish quality criticisms. This pattern of dishonesty is getting out of control.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Christian 'Science' again

Posted on December 9, 2009 by Michael

Seth Johnson is back in the local paper. I’ve responded to his nonsense in the past, but he keeps on going. My recent letter supporting atheism was published within the past 30 days, so I am not able to send in another letter to make sure people don’t buy into this Christian Science malarkey, so FTSOS will have to do. Here is the letter.

I’d like to respond to the article “‘Spiritual health care’ advocates seeking inclusion in legislation” which appeared on Nov. 27.

The Christian Science church has asked Congress to include a provision so that insurance companies do not discriminate against people who choose spiritual care to meet their health-care needs. The federal government will not be “paying for prayer.” The intent is to allow people who pay in to private insurance to get the care they find effective.

Many people have found spiritual care, such as Christian Science, to be reliable and affordable in meeting their health-care needs for many generations. Individuals pay for this form of treatment as a professional service. Payments go directly to Christian Science practitioners, or full-time healers, who are self-employed and receive no compensation from the church. It’s their only livelihood.

The legislative provision under consideration does not change child protection laws.

That being said, is spiritual care safe for children? Parents are required by law to provide proper health care to children, and the Christian Science church fully supports laws that require parents to act responsibly and provide good care. If families use spiritual care with their children, it must be done responsibly and with good results.

Also, this provision is not trying to put spiritual care on the same level as medical care. It is only about what private insurance companies decide to cover in their policies.

Everyone should receive good health care. In the current debate about mandating health insurance, methods of proven effective treatment should be made available to the public.

Seth Johnson

Christian Science Committee on Publication for Maine

Falmouth

As usual, a pusher of bad medicine isn’t being entirely forthcoming. The inclusion of Christian Science in the health care bill would require insurance companies to consider covering “religious and spiritual healthcare”. Such a requirement (even if it’s only a requirement of consideration) is obviously unconstitutional. Perhaps more important, however, is the fact that these anti-medical faith-heads don’t have a shred of evidence which suggests that anything they do actually works.

I mean, goodness, is that so much for people to ask? Just offer us some actual experiments, some studies, some tests. Give us something which can actually be discussed. Right now all we’re seeing is a bunch of malarkey which appeals to nothing but faith and placebo effects. It’s ludicrous that anyone could support this rubbish.

On a separate note, the Kennebec Journal (the paper in which the letter appeared) is showing itself to have a favoritism toward this anti-science nonsense. First it goes out of its way to offer extra space and apologetics to some naturopathic quack at the end of a letter, then it refuses to publish letters critical of that sort of junk, going so far as to lie about why they won’t publish quality criticisms. This pattern of dishonesty is getting out of control.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Justice Scalia has one of the worst legal minds in the nation

Posted on December 7, 2009 by Michael

There is a case before the Supreme Court concerning Miranda rights

[Kevin] Powell was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon “off the street” for $150 for his protection. Before his confession, Powell signed a Miranda statement that included the statements “You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.”

The Florida Supreme Court overturned the conviction on grounds the Tampa police didn’t adequately convey to Powell that he was allowed to have a lawyer with him during questioning.

According to the article, courts haven’t ruled too clearly on this. At the heart of the issue is that police were not clear enough in all their points. Justice Sotomayor makes the following observation.

“We’ve got a split of circuit courts and state courts on whether this reasonably conveys or not. Shouldn’t that be enough of an ambiguity for us to conclude it can’t reasonably convey, if there’s this many courts holding that it doesn’t?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

That seems like a fair question. Clearly, Obama’s recent pick has some rationality about her.

But then there’s always that loser of a legal mind, Scalia.

Justice Scalia called Brueckheimer’s argument “angels dancing on the head of a pin.”

“You are saying, ‘Oh, if he had only known. Oh, if I knew that I could have an attorney present during the interview, well, that would have been a different kettle of fish and I would never have confessed,'” Scalia said. “I mean, doesn’t that seem to you quite fantastic?”

At issue is not whether this particular suspect would have exercised his rights or not. In fact, it is irrelevant if any suspect would have exercised such a right. The law does not turn on this crazy notion that rights are not important if people do not utilize them. Justice Scalia has just an awful, awful legal mind. I can’t recall the last time I heard him make a valid point about a case.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The faux war on Christmas is back and O'Reilly is leading the charge

Posted on December 7, 2009 by Michael

Bill O’Reilly, silly pundit and man of poor reasoning skills, is back at attacking atheists. This time it’s especially fun because all he does is set up strawmen and make other dumb arguments.

Once again we are in the Christmas season, and the coal-in-your-stocking crowd is back at it.

This sounds like a negative, militant bunch! I have to imagine they have just an awful, awful message. Right?

This year, the American Humanist Association is putting up bus ads in selected cities that say: “No God? No Problem! Be Good for Goodness’ Sake.”

Hang on. This sounds like a positive, upbeat message. (It’s also a minor change to a previous bus ad.) How does this constitute wanting to put coal in anyone’s stockings? It sounds like this atheist group is promoting a positive message imploring people to be upstanding, good individuals. And isn’t it interesting how virtually all atheist groups seem to do this? It’s like reason and rationality lead to better people in general.

The picture accompanying the text shows a group of young people wearing Santa hats. Ho, ho, ho. The virulently anti-God group “Freedom from Religion” has launched a second front. It is celebrating Christmas in Las Vegas with ads that say: “Yes, Virginia, there is no God.” Nice.

Oh, excuse me. It appears Billo has utilized his thesaurus. These atheists are virulent, not militant. Maybe we can start calling all those negroes haughty instead of uppity, too.

The question is: Why bother? Why spend money at Christmastime (sic) to spread dubious will among men? The reason, I believe, is that atheists are jealous of the Yuletide season.

Wow, this one should be fun.

1) Atheists bother because they want to get their message out there. Religion is a stain on society and needs to be put back in its box so that we can all enjoy more liberty.

2) Atheist groups have spent money on these sort of ads all year long. Christmas time, however, is a period when religion’s profile is raised more so than during other times of the year. It makes sense to counter this by intentionally raising atheism’s profile, too.

3) Billo believes we are jealous of this season. Once again, we see a non-rational religious individual going on faith alone; he has no evidence for his silly little belief. See #1 and #2 for real reason why atheist groups are putting out ads.

While Christians have Jesus and Jews have the prophets, nonbelievers have Bill Maher. There are no Christmas carols for atheists, no pagan displays of largesse like Santa Claus. In fact, for the nonbeliever, Christmas is just a day off, a time to consider that Mardi Gras is less than two months away.

Unlike Billo, I make no arrogant claim to be able to speak for all atheists. However, I do know that most still celebrate Christmas. They obviously have little to no interest in the whole Jesus part, but the holiday has come to mean far more than that. Christmas is when family from all over tends to get and come together to enjoy each others’ company. It’s a festive time that does not require any god for it to mean something.

And is Billo suggesting that Mardi Gras is an atheist event? Last time I checked it had its root in religious tradition, since being co-opted by dozens of cultures as a secular celebration – sort of like how Christmas can be and is secular for many. But maybe Billo wants to start claiming the fourth of July or St. Patrick’s Day as atheist holidays next.

But there is a serious side to this, and the American “Humanists” should listen up. Christmas is a joyous time for children, the big upside of celebrating the birth of Jesus.

Spectacular. First Billo spends his time arguing that Christmas is not to be done without God, then he sets up this contrast. First Christmas is a lot of fun for children, however and in edition, it is also a time when people can celebrate the birth of Jesus. Does he not get it? He just admitted that Christmas tends to be celebrated without regard to Jesus. It’s almost like there’s a secular component to the season – one that “is a joyous time”, and not just for children.

Of course, Billo is playing fast and loose with implications here. He’s trying to say that atheists don’t want children (or anyone else) to enjoy Christmas. This is a complete strawman, and an ugly one at that. This guy is just another mudslinger who has no interest in hearing the rational messages of atheists.

Why, then, do people who want to “be good” spend money denigrating a beautiful day?

Again, the denigration is directed at this myth that one needs God to be good, not the idea of Christmas. And again, most atheists celebrate the Christmas season – they just do it by staying connected with reality (i.e., spending time with family, not magic sky fairies).

Could it be that the humanists are not really interested in good at all?

No.

The head Humanist, Roy Speckhardt, says the anti-God signs are worthy because they send a message that atheists shouldn’t be vilified as immoral.

Billo’s slimy article as People’s Evidence 1.

Well, old Roy needs to wise up. The signs actually create resentment and hostility toward atheists. Here’s a bulletin: Many parents don’t want their children to see bus signs proclaiming that God is a big hoax.

Haha. Really? It’s the signs that have created resentment and hostility toward atheists? It has nothing to do with the smear pieces that get published?

As for what parents do and do not want their children to see, it is antithetical to rationality to try and block a child from a harmless message. In fact, parents should be encouraging a dialogue with their children about these ads. They present an important point of view, one which actually seeks to alleviate children of the burden of being told they may burn in hell for eternity for minor transgressions over a roughly 80 year period.

That message may be constitutionally protected, but it is not going to engender much good will among believers.

The broader point here is to start people talking. That has happened as we see here in People’s Evidence 1. As for encouraging good will among believers, I would hope it would do that. It obviously isn’t going to get Billo to do any good because that isn’t in his nature, but rational individuals may be invigorated to do something positive.

Of course, Speckhardt knows that and is being disingenuous with the “just looking out for atheists” posture his group takes.

Speckhardt’s point is that atheists are not inherently immoral. We want to see good things done just as much as the next guy. This is the bulk of what he has said. I don’t see where Billo has any grounds for calling him a liar.

What many nonbelievers enjoy doing is mocking those who embrace theology. I guess that makes some atheists feel better because there is no other reason to run down Christmas. It is a happy day for most human beings.

Non-sequitur alert! Non-sequitur alert!

Why the sudden new charge about mockery? How does that have anything to do with the ad? And “no other reason to run down Christmas”? Didn’t Billo just spend his entire article talking about how jealousy was the reason for these ads?

The latest Rasmussen poll on the season says that 72 percent of Americans like saying, “Merry Christmas,” while just 22 percent prefer the greeting “Happy Holidays.”

So the evidence suggests that despite the American Civil Liberties Union, atheist groups and a politically correct media, Christmas is actually gaining in relevance and, perhaps, reverence.

Here’s another good example of why Billo is not a rational person. He cited a single poll and then claimed it was evidence for a trend. I don’t think I need to go any further on that point.

Most folks know a good thing when they see it, and the converse is true, as well. They know these anti-God signs at Christmastime are dumb and unnecessary.

See People’s Evidence 1 again.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

The faux war on Christmas is back and O’Reilly is leading the charge

Posted on December 7, 2009 by Michael

Bill O’Reilly, silly pundit and man of poor reasoning skills, is back at attacking atheists. This time it’s especially fun because all he does is set up strawmen and make other dumb arguments.

Once again we are in the Christmas season, and the coal-in-your-stocking crowd is back at it.

This sounds like a negative, militant bunch! I have to imagine they have just an awful, awful message. Right?

This year, the American Humanist Association is putting up bus ads in selected cities that say: “No God? No Problem! Be Good for Goodness’ Sake.”

Hang on. This sounds like a positive, upbeat message. (It’s also a minor change to a previous bus ad.) How does this constitute wanting to put coal in anyone’s stockings? It sounds like this atheist group is promoting a positive message imploring people to be upstanding, good individuals. And isn’t it interesting how virtually all atheist groups seem to do this? It’s like reason and rationality lead to better people in general.

The picture accompanying the text shows a group of young people wearing Santa hats. Ho, ho, ho. The virulently anti-God group “Freedom from Religion” has launched a second front. It is celebrating Christmas in Las Vegas with ads that say: “Yes, Virginia, there is no God.” Nice.

Oh, excuse me. It appears Billo has utilized his thesaurus. These atheists are virulent, not militant. Maybe we can start calling all those negroes haughty instead of uppity, too.

The question is: Why bother? Why spend money at Christmastime (sic) to spread dubious will among men? The reason, I believe, is that atheists are jealous of the Yuletide season.

Wow, this one should be fun.

1) Atheists bother because they want to get their message out there. Religion is a stain on society and needs to be put back in its box so that we can all enjoy more liberty.

2) Atheist groups have spent money on these sort of ads all year long. Christmas time, however, is a period when religion’s profile is raised more so than during other times of the year. It makes sense to counter this by intentionally raising atheism’s profile, too.

3) Billo believes we are jealous of this season. Once again, we see a non-rational religious individual going on faith alone; he has no evidence for his silly little belief. See #1 and #2 for real reason why atheist groups are putting out ads.

While Christians have Jesus and Jews have the prophets, nonbelievers have Bill Maher. There are no Christmas carols for atheists, no pagan displays of largesse like Santa Claus. In fact, for the nonbeliever, Christmas is just a day off, a time to consider that Mardi Gras is less than two months away.

Unlike Billo, I make no arrogant claim to be able to speak for all atheists. However, I do know that most still celebrate Christmas. They obviously have little to no interest in the whole Jesus part, but the holiday has come to mean far more than that. Christmas is when family from all over tends to get and come together to enjoy each others’ company. It’s a festive time that does not require any god for it to mean something.

And is Billo suggesting that Mardi Gras is an atheist event? Last time I checked it had its root in religious tradition, since being co-opted by dozens of cultures as a secular celebration – sort of like how Christmas can be and is secular for many. But maybe Billo wants to start claiming the fourth of July or St. Patrick’s Day as atheist holidays next.

But there is a serious side to this, and the American “Humanists” should listen up. Christmas is a joyous time for children, the big upside of celebrating the birth of Jesus.

Spectacular. First Billo spends his time arguing that Christmas is not to be done without God, then he sets up this contrast. First Christmas is a lot of fun for children, however and in addition, it is also a time when people can celebrate the birth of Jesus. Does he not get it? He just admitted that Christmas tends to be celebrated without regard to Jesus. It’s almost like there’s a secular component to the season – one that “is a joyous time”, and not just for children.

Of course, Billo is playing fast and loose with implications here. He’s trying to say that atheists don’t want children (or anyone else) to enjoy Christmas. This is a complete strawman, and an ugly one at that. This guy is just another mudslinger who has no interest in hearing the rational messages of atheists.

Why, then, do people who want to “be good” spend money denigrating a beautiful day?

Again, the denigration is directed at this myth that one needs God to be good, not the idea of Christmas. And again, most atheists celebrate the Christmas season – they just do it by staying connected with reality (i.e., spending time with family, not magic sky fairies).

Could it be that the humanists are not really interested in good at all?

No.

The head Humanist, Roy Speckhardt, says the anti-God signs are worthy because they send a message that atheists shouldn’t be vilified as immoral.

Billo’s slimy article as People’s Evidence 1.

Well, old Roy needs to wise up. The signs actually create resentment and hostility toward atheists. Here’s a bulletin: Many parents don’t want their children to see bus signs proclaiming that God is a big hoax.

Haha. Really? It’s the signs that have created resentment and hostility toward atheists? It has nothing to do with the smear pieces that get published?

As for what parents do and do not want their children to see, it is antithetical to rationality to try and block a child from a harmless message. In fact, parents should be encouraging a dialogue with their children about these ads. They present an important point of view, one which actually seeks to alleviate children of the burden of being told they may burn in hell for eternity for minor transgressions over a roughly 80 year period.

That message may be constitutionally protected, but it is not going to engender much good will among believers.

The broader point here is to start people talking. That has happened as we see here in People’s Evidence 1. As for encouraging good will among believers, I would hope it would do that. It obviously isn’t going to get Billo to do any good because that isn’t in his nature, but rational individuals may be invigorated to do something positive.

Of course, Speckhardt knows that and is being disingenuous with the “just looking out for atheists” posture his group takes.

Speckhardt’s point is that atheists are not inherently immoral. We want to see good things done just as much as the next guy. This is the bulk of what he has said. I don’t see where Billo has any grounds for calling him a liar.

What many nonbelievers enjoy doing is mocking those who embrace theology. I guess that makes some atheists feel better because there is no other reason to run down Christmas. It is a happy day for most human beings.

Non-sequitur alert! Non-sequitur alert!

Why the sudden new charge about mockery? How does that have anything to do with the ad? And “no other reason to run down Christmas”? Didn’t Billo just spend his entire article talking about how jealousy was the reason for these ads?

The latest Rasmussen poll on the season says that 72 percent of Americans like saying, “Merry Christmas,” while just 22 percent prefer the greeting “Happy Holidays.”

So the evidence suggests that despite the American Civil Liberties Union, atheist groups and a politically correct media, Christmas is actually gaining in relevance and, perhaps, reverence.

Here’s another good example of why Billo is not a rational person. He cited a single poll and then claimed it was evidence for a trend. I don’t think I need to go any further on that point.

Most folks know a good thing when they see it, and the converse is true, as well. They know these anti-God signs at Christmastime are dumb and unnecessary.

See People’s Evidence 1 again.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

"Efforts to reach Christ were unsuccessful."

Posted on December 5, 2009 by Michael

Just like the regular Jesus.

Jesus Christ was called for jury duty this week in Jefferson County, but was sent home for being disruptive.

Court officials were skeptical at first when on Monday a potential juror submitted a name change form with “Jesus Christ” on it. But the 59-year-old Birmingham woman, who previously went by Dorothy Lola Killingworth, assured the presiding judge that was her name.

“It raised eyebrows, so I asked her if that were truly her name,” Circuit Court Judge Scott Vowell said. “She assured me that it was. She had her name changed in the Probate Court, and she presented her driver’s license.”

Christ was sent to Judge Clyde Jones’s courtroom for a criminal case, but was excused because she was disruptive, court officials said.

Instead of answering questions, she was asking them, a court employee in Jones’s (sic) office said.

Efforts to reach Christ were unsuccessful.

Court administrator Sandra Turner said she and others in the jury assembly room were somewhat shocked at first when the woman insisted Christ was her name. And when her name was called, several potential jurors laughed out loud.

Unlike some Jefferson County residents, Christ did not try to get out of jury duty. “She was perfectly happy to serve,” said Turner.

Filed under: Humor, News | Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »