Vatican "forgives" Lennon

Via the BBC comes the news that the Vatican has decided to "forgive" John Lennon for claiming that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus.

How nice.

Of course, the Vatican finds itself, as the Americans say, a day late and a dollar short. See, they've decided that Lennon's comment was a "boast", whereas anyone who knows the truth behind the story realises that it was nothing of the sort.

So I guess that 40-odd years after the fact it's nice that they're acknowledging it at all. Actually, I think that this is just an indicator of how far behind the Vatican is in their paperwork. Maybe some overworked clerk finally got around to reading the original article and realised the mistake.

Think about it. The Vatican is always coming out and saying things about events that happened decades ago. They've only recently acknowledged that the then Pope might have done more when it came to the question of Hitler. And before that we had the admission that the Spanish Inquisition might have been a wee bit on the harsh side.

So there's hope. It seems like they are catching up. They've probably just hired on some new, eager young firebrand who is working through the backlog.

At this rate the Roman Catholic church should be ready to admit that overcrowding is somewhat of a problem some time around 2012, by 2017 they might be telling us that AIDS is a threat, and by 2020 they may finally come out and tell us that abstinence-only education doesn't work. Who knows, we may yet see them endorsing condoms and producing their own blessed "packet of three" under the name "His Holiness's Swiss Guard*".

I wouldn't hold my breath, though. It's been two thousand years and they're still clinging to the myth that Jesus was a peace-loving lamb who was killed by the Jews instead of the Romans.

* I can't claim this joke as my own. It appeared in an old Dark Future novel by Games Workshop.

And again...

I see that Bill O'Reilly and the Fox news team have started this year's "War On Christmas" blatherings already.

Is it just me or is there something sick about this so-called War On Christmas tomfoolery in a world where people really are suffering persecution for their beliefs?

What is it going to take?

Recent events in Mt Vernon, Ohio have once again uncovered the dark dirty side of religion. It's not so much that a teacher - who, according of one member of the school board had been the subject of numerous complaints over the last eleven years - taught creationism in his science class and had bibles and little ten commandments idols all over the place.

And, as horrific as it is, it's not even the fact that this religious nutball masquerading as a science teacher BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS!!

No, as bad as that seems, that's not really what brought me up short.

Take a deep breath, people. Yep. Friends, families and random apologetics are defending this nutbar who BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS!!

Yep, this so-called science teacher took up a high-frequency generator and BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS is being defended for branding children with a crucifix.

Y'know, I don't care what the symbol is, the fact that it was BURNED INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS makes it wrong, wrong, wrong. If the teacher had been an atheist and had burned the atom symbol (or even my symbol) into the arms of his students, they'd even now be piling up the firewood to burn th' day-vil outta th' witch.

But it's a crucifix and he was preaching their religion, so the religious feel obligated to defend the guy who BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS, even though the act is clearly indefensible. They say that, y'know, apart from that whole BURNING CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS, he was "teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district", values, presumably, that include lying in the name of your god.

See, despite the fact that a blind duckling in a bag could see that the symbol that was BURNED INTO THE STUDENT'S ARMS (see right) is a crucifix, Mr Upstanding Christian thinks he can lie his way out of it by claiming it was an "x", and not a crucifix.

Okay, let's assume for a moment that it's true. Hey, asshole, you still BURNED "X"s INTO THE ARMS OF YOUR STUDENTS!!

Anyway, it's not just the usual procession of friends and family (who, had he taken a hunting knife into class and disemboweled his students would have told the media "he was such a nice, quiet guy") stepping up to defend the fake science teacher who BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS, here's the usual round of nutty bastards stepping up to don armour, raise the standard, draw swords and march off to war in defence of this good Christian soldier.

The comments to this story are a sad reminder of why religion is so dangerous. The reason I'm all-capping and italicising is to make sure that the simple fact of this guy's horrendous crime is kept to the fore. This isn't just some church-state issue, this isn't some liberals-hounding-harmless-christian story, this guy BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS!!

How can any rational (ha!) person defend this guy? Hello? He BURNED KIDS. You don't even need to imagine if it was an Islamic symbol or a pentagram or anything else, the fact that it was BURNED INTO THE STUDENT'S ARMS is enough. The fact that it was a crucifix that was BURNED INTO THEIR ARMS is merely the light dusting of powdered sugar on top of the gigantic, seven-layered, intricately iced, three-flavoured sponge cake that's making the table groan in protest.

Here's a few more, this time commenting on how this teacher refused to remove the bible from his desk. Note the sad old pony being trotted out for another run around the yard, to wit: the notion that, had it been a Koran on his desk, the liberals wouldn't have said a word. And this is worth addressing, because it is true.

Had this nutcase placed a Koran on his desk, I wouldn't complain, and nor would anyone who could be tarred with the "liberal" brush. We wouldn't complain simply because we would never have had the chance. Had this guy placed a Koran on his desk and refused to remove it, the good ole boys would have thrown his Mohammed-worshippin' ass outta there so fast that he'd still be bouncing today.

And they probably would have hidden behind the establishment clause to do it.

But that's an aside. As of now, anyone who criticises this nutty moron who BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS is being anti-Christian and people who are sickened or disgusted by the fact that a teacher BURNED CROSSES INTO THE ARMS OF HIS STUDENTS are simply seizing upon a non-event as an excuse to bash this beautiful, virtuous Christian teacher.

All clear? Good.

'Tis The Season

Well, it's been a hectic couple o' weeks. We moved house, a process that was way harder and took way longer than any two people should have to endure. Still, we're firmly ensconced in our new home. Settling - if not settled - in, just in time for Christmas.

Thus far this year I've been spared much of the "war on Christmas" claptrap, thanks to the fact that I've had neither the time nor inclination to watch The Never Ending Torrent Of Complete And Utter Bullshit That Is FAUX News, however, I did notice one of our greatest and most prolific anti-Christmas warriors firing a beautiful salvo. Yep, that world-renown secular progressive, the Archbishop Of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, says that the traditional Christmas story - the manger, star, wise men, blah, blah, blah - is only "a legend".

Thanks to the Hippy, here is a lil' Xmas video, and a lil' Xmas song. Don't blame me, I'm just passin' 'em on.

Have a very merry Christmas, Mythmas, Solstice, December 25th, Whatever You're Doing, and don't drink and drive - you'll spill it all over your trousers.

Our Lord, Who Art In London..

From our You Cannot Make This Shit Up desk comes the story that HRH Prince Phillip is God.

So HRH Prince Charles is Jesus, right?

Hat tip to Simon.

Clowns KKKick KKK ass!

This may be the single greatest news story in the history of mankind.

Wife power!

Ricky Gervais On Creationism

Hi-larious:

An Atheist Symbol

Even the less observant readers will have noticed that prominent red letter "A" decorating the sidebar beneath the picture of the devilishly handsome rogue who is sleeping with my wife.

It's okay, though. I'm sleeping with the devilishly handsome rogue's wife, too. And she's hot.

Anyway. The "A".

It's the symbol of Richard Dawkins' OUT campaign, which seeks to encourage atheists to get loud and proud.

I first heard about it over at Pharyngula, where the usual argument ensued.

It is, indeed, true that getting atheists to do anything together is like herding cats. It stands to reason, if we were inclined to run with the crowd, we'd be religious.

Anyway, the usual problems with any symbol designed to represent atheism were raised.

First, that it's an "A". Whilst the word for atheist begins with an "A" in most languages, there are some in which it does not, and, of course, there are those languages which do not use the Latin alphabet, so "A" doesn't represent the word atheism everywhere.

Second, the "A" doesn't really represent atheism. It's just the first letter of the word, it doesn't really represent us or what we are.

Then there's the fact that it's a scarlet letter. Yeah, we get the whole "ironic twist" thing, but some aren't comfortable with it.

The atom symbol favoured by American Atheists is often rejected by non-Americans for that same reason, that it represents American atheists.

Some propose using the "no" sign (red circle with a slash through it), usually over a crucifix or collection of religious symbols. Most reject this, as do I, because it makes a statement about what we are not, rather than what we are.

Others favour the null set symbol "{}", but to me, that seems in need of too much explanation.

Still, mindful of the "put up or shut up" philosophy of life, I decided to see about designing an atheist symbol that addresses these issues.

I decided to work to the following requirements:

1) It must represent what atheism is, not what it is not.

2) It must either be understandable in any language, or translatable into any language without spoiling the integrity of the symbol.

3) It must be reasonably easy to understand with, if necessary, only the minimum amount of explanation.

Here's what I came up with:

One of the things I remember from school biology class is that there's this cool machine that makes squigly patterns when you connect it to peoples' heads.

Don't mind me, I'm just playing dumb.

It's called an EEG, and there is a visible difference between the pattern generated by a sleeping subject and that generated by an awake subject.

There is also a marked difference between a person who is relaxed, and a person who is thinking cognitively (which means thinking about stuff as opposed to thinking about an object they can see).

The latter are called Gamma waves and, thanks to the nice people at the Wikimedia commons, here is an example:


So, this is what it looks like when you think about stuff. What more perfect symbol could there be? This, in fact, is your brain on atheism. It's a little big, though. So I snipped an interesting looking bit out of the middle and, just because my blog has a black background, made it yellow-on-black:

Nice. It's like.. thought.. pictured..

Ahem.

Anyway, it's a little obscure, but no more so than a Crucifix or a Star of David would be if you didn't already know what they were.

Okay, if you want, I'll add the word "Atheist" underneath:


Or, in French:

Swedish:

Finnish:

Greek:

Arabic:

Japanese:

You get the point. It's nice on its own, or you can put atheist in any language on there. You could put "freethinker" or "bright", if you favour those terms. You can put "my mind, my choice" if you're feeling subtly humourous, or "don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church" if you're feeling a little more in-your-face.

So, I extend the challenge:

Put up or shut up.

If you're an atheist and you don't like the symbols being used, come up with one of your own. See if you can convince anyone to use it.

A Great Family Day Out

Those nice people over at BlueGrassRoots went for a quick squint at that ridiculous Creation Museum (yes it is, no it's not) and came back with a very entertaining story and some hilarious pics.

Take a squint yourself.

And Again...

Once again, my homeland informs the god squad that they have to obey the law just like everyone else.

I'm trying not to gloat, here, but it is nice to see England keeping up with the ancient tradition of "believing in the invisible man in the sky does not entitle one to any special privileges, no matter how much one might wish it".

They're At It Again

Remember Nadia Eweida vs British Airways in the case of "you're making me obey the same rules as everyone else but I'm a Christian so it's discrimination"?

Well, here they go again.

16 year-old Lydia Playfoot was told that she has to obey her school's uniform code just like everyone else, and that means no rings.

But because Playfoot is a Christian, she feels that she should be exempt but refuses to admit it and, instead, describes a uniform code that applies equally to everyone as - you guessed it - "discrimination."

In typical "persecuted" Christian style, she compares her pointless "purity ring" that she chooses to wear but her faith does not require with headscarves and turbans which are exactly the opposite.

Sheesh. They rule the bloody country. You'd think persecution would be hard to fake, but they're right there doing it.

Eleven Down, One To Go

Okay, this is it. This is it. Last day tomorrow, so no doubt it'll drag like a bugger.

Now, onto something strange:

Auntie reports that Delcambre, LA (that's in the state of Louisiana, for those outside the US) is on the verge of banning low-riding trousers that show off the wearer's underwear. $500 fine or even jail time. Apparently, in Delcambre, underwear* is being added to the list of "indecent exposures."

Y'know. This garbage is bad. But what's worse is that the same people who tend to support this kind of law also tend to condemn Islamic countries for requiring women to wear the burqa.

Guess what? It's the same thing.

The only difference is scale. Religious nutbars banning visible underwear is the same impetus, the same egocentricism, the same prudishness as religious nutbars banning women in public with their faces showing.

Look at this. Tell me those aren't just scaled-down burqas.

*It seems that, as well as being prudes, they also missed the loophole. Stop wearing boxers or briefs and start wearing swimming trunks or some form of sports shorts instead. They're not underwear so the law doesn't apply and you can wear your trews just as low as you like. Duh.

Nine Down, Three To Go

I'm a little late, but here nonetheless. Akusai over at Action Skeptics has the latest Carnival Of The Godless up.

Go. Read. Go now!

Seven Down, Five To Go

Here, in video format, is the BBC report on Kentucky's newly-opened "Creation Museum" (mentioned here a few days ago).

Especially impressive is the quote from the actual scientist about how the only thing that's missing is the "yabba-dabba-do."

Excellent stuff.

Haw-Haw!

The so-called "Creation Museum" (yes, it is, no, it's not) has been hit by a sex scandal already. Apparently, the guy who plays "Adam" in the museum's propaganda fiction is - er - not exactly the kind of person that die-hard, right-wing, uber-bigots like to hang out with.

Jerry Falwell dead at 73

I somehow missed the news that Jerry Falwell, beloved icon of the "we hate everyone who isn't white, doesn't act heterosexual, isn't rich and isn't Christian enough to hate all the same things we do" crowd, died on Tuesday.

My mother always taught me that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

Ooookay...

Members of the Utah County Republican party actually debated a resolution tabled by one of their number which declared that illegal immigration is caused by Satan.

Don Larsen, chairman of legislative District 65 for the Utah County Republican Party, had submitted a resolution warning that Satan's minions want to eliminate national borders and do away with sovereignty.

In a speech at the convention, Larsen told those gathered that illegal immigrants "hate American people" and "are determined to destroy this country, and there is nothing they won't do."

Illegal aliens are in control of the media, and working in tandem with Democrats, are trying to "destroy Christian America" and replace it with "a godless new world order -- and that is not extremism, that is fact," Larsen said.

At the end of his speech, Larsen began to cry, saying illegal immigrants were trying to bring about the destruction of the U.S. "by self invasion."

Wow. Mmmkay.

God Is Love

I'm a great believer in freedom of speech. I believe that it is one of the most fundamentally important rights that any person can claim. I also believe in freedom of religion. People should be free to practice their religion (or lack thereof) without interference, especially from the government.

Having said all that, some people really need to learn when to shut the fuck up and fuck the fuck off.

(Via AMERICAblog)

They Never Cease To Surprise Me

In his Easter address, Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop Of Canterbury, will "call for reconciliation around the world."

In his sermon, Dr Williams will say Christianity's most important festival - marking the resurrection of Jesus three days after his death by crucifixion - shows how reconciliation can be achieved in the present day.

He will say that its account of devastation followed by joy shows how if those engaged in conflict can admit their own faults, they can escape the deadlock of mutual hatred and suspicion.

Okay, I'm getting a familiar vibe here..

"Give up the struggle to be innocent and the hope that God will proclaim that you were right and everyone else wrong. Simply ask for whatever healing it is that you need, whatever grace and hope you need to be free, then step towards your neighbour.

"Easter reveals a God who is ready to give you that grace and to walk with you."

He will add: "When in our world we are faced with the terrible deadlocks of mutual hatred and suspicion, with rival stories of suffering and atrocity, we have to pray for this resurrection message to be heard."

Hey, dumbass, the majority of the world's population doesn't believe in your god. To them, your little Easter tale is nothing more than a fairy tale. It is not instructional, it doesn't point the way to anything, it reveals nothing. It was a story invented to take Eostermonath away from the Pagans. It means nothing to most of the people on the planet.

Happy Eostermonath, everyone. Hope the fertility Goddess blesses you and yours.

This is why religion is dangerous

A few months ago I mentioned the fact that the British government had just announced that the Catholic church has to obey the law just like everyone else. The law in question is new regulations concerning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Part of the new law deals with adoption, and how agencies aren't allowed to refuse placement on the grounds that the couple are same-sex. The Catholic church attempted to put themselves above the law and were told, basically, not a chance.

Now, the Catholic church is hitting back by whining about MPs "rail-roading" the laws through Parliament, despite all regulations being met and all proprieties being observed. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who presumes to speak for all of England and Wales, claims the process was "an abuse of parliamentary democracy" and said "profound public concern about aspects of these regulations has not been heard."

I probably don't need to mention what those two lines translate as.

That's not really what prompted this post. A church having a whinge because somebody reminds them that they aren't, after all, the sole voice of law in the universe is funny, but not unusual.

What's prompted this is the report mentioning that, if the Catholics don't get their own way, the Catholic adoption facilities which, apparently, "handle some of the most difficult-to-place children", will close rather than adhere to the new laws.

There it is. Right there. Rather than occasionally having to consider placing a child with a same-sex couple, the Catholic church, in its compassion, love and humanity, is going to abandon all of them.

Yeah, nice.

I doubt many same-sex couples would bother going to a Catholic adoption agency if they had any sort of a choice, but rather than take that minuscule risk, the "God is love" brigade will refuse to help any child in need of a family.

All that "compromising beliefs" talk is bull. The Catholic church wanted to be above man's laws and they got slapped down, so they're taking their ball and going home.

Any faith that can prompt a person to make such a ridiculous, harmful decision is a faith that deserves no respect, a faith that does more harm than good.