Saturday, July 26, 2008

Most Holy Cracker Updates

Some of you might be sick of this absurdity, but I am fascinated by the many different facets of this socially-induced sickness that have been turned to light and explored.

Here is a recent development wherein the Student Senate at UCF has voted to impeach Webster Cook. Will they do the right thing in the end? Yeah, sure (coughs out “Blowjob!” a-la Animal House).

Here is the tidbit from the article above I would like to focus on:

UCF is barred by federal law from confirming whether any complaints have been filed against Cook. But the statements included in the affidavit refer to a formal complaint against Cook by the campus ministry for disrupting the service.

Barred by Federal law from making complaints a matter of public record. Why? … because it would “hurt the whole town?” Can someone help me out here? Whom does this law serve?

And now we come to the real reason that the Campus Ministry is so angry. Webster Cook disrupted a “service”. Hypnotists cannot perform induction if they are interrupted. To put this another way, it’s hard to jerk a person off if they are distracted before the “money shot”. It comes as no surprise to me that religious organizations that demand tolerance for their money-grubbing lunacy have zero tolerance for "disruption". You might wake someone up to the bullshit that way.

Here and here are recent P.Z. Myers posts. He forgot to include the German Bologna. Why German? Beef and pork.

Here is one for the recipe books, if not the history books.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, July 21, 2008

Those Who Can, Do...

and those who can't...

Most of us have heard this and know how it ends. I have known my share of teachers, and I beg to differ. Those who can't, go into politics.

I'm still playing catch-up on things. Check this out.

Monique Davis has been chastised for her comments, and has apologized. That's nice. A politician will say anything. That's what they do. I want to peel a couple more layers off this onion and look at it two more ways. I want to address how she said what she said, and ponder why she said it.

" I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him."

This comes from that standard shovel-full of bullshit that smarmy preachers jam down the throats of their congregations. "Atheists don't really disbelieve in Jehovamagod, they're just mad at HIM." No, we really think IT is the product of some really creative and insideous bullshit.

"We look forward to him and his blessings."

Yes, we know. This is how the scam works. You look forward to your reward, and then you die and no one has to pay up.

"And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school. I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?"

This is a false analogy of sorts, as well as a fallacy of an undistributed middle. Nobody is arguing in favor of guns in school. There are laws against guns in school, and laws governing prayer in school. The differences are that prayer in school is not illegal, and the faculty and staff are not known to willfully disregard the laws against guns.

"I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. "

This is a false statement, as can be demonstrated by her subsequent remarks. She has already reached her conclusions. It is either rhetorical, delusional, or a deliberate lie.

"This is the Land of Lincoln."

At first glance this looks like a non sequitur. It’s a non sequitur that has been carefully loaded up with jingoistic meaning and fired off repeatedly over the years. One, two, three, KNEE-JERK!

“This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, …”

This is also the land of the Illinois, who were pushed off their land through worthless treaties, chicanery, hostage taking, and other immoral acts. It’s the land where people also believe in Vishnu, Brahman, Muhammad, the Earth Mother, and Adolph Hitler. Ms. Davis isn’t talking about those people because they aren’t part of the social/religious/political hierarchy who were conned into electing this manipulating D student of history and humanity. She is only interested in stroking the fragile egos of those who have been taught to both fear and scorn the ones who don’t believe exactly what they have been taught to believe. You know, the Marks of the Christian White Man Scam.

“… where people believe in protecting their children.… “

As opposed to what fucking planet where parents don’t have this instinct? No one in history ever ate their own babies as a cultural norm… and oh yeah, “Won’t someone please think about THE CHILDREN?”

“What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous—“

Nice word, “spew”. Especially from someone who is spewing out a bunch of emotional appeal, very short on reasoning and logic… and proof for what is being asserted. This is the sentence that proves the one that starts, “I’m trying to understand… “ is false.

“It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!”

I think you mean “progress” Ms. Davis. And, shouldn’t “state” be capitalized, as in the State of Mandatory Ideology you and your kind want to create? Manufacturing false outrage might get you elected, but it also creates the kind of prejudice that divides the common man, and keeps control-freaks like you in control. This is the “progress” you would have us believe you are supporting, the status quo. The only danger to “our” children, is the risk that they will not become blind followers, and will be socially ostracized (as you are attempting to do here) because of it. Once again, nobody is talking about guns right now but you.

If you are fed up, why don’t you get up and leave you posturing jackass? You know why, and so do I.

“You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.”

Thank you for explaining your version of someone else’s beliefs. I’m sure your version is more in line with what your follower friends want to believe. I always say, “If you want to know what an atheist is all about, ask a Christian.” Good thing you don’t have the final word on who has rights. Oh wait….

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

The True Meaning of the Eucharist

People ask, “What’s the true meaning of Christmas?” but few bother to ask about the true meaning of the Eucharist, a.k.a. Holy Communion. The subject came to my attention lately through this post on pharyngula. Here is the editorial that got P.Z. Myers embroiled in the latest crusade of the control-freaks to maintain their delusional hold over the gullible and unsuspecting indoctrinees. In short, Catholics are taught to believe that the consecrated Host (cracker, not computer for you UNIX heads) is ACTUALLY, not symbolically, the body of Jesus, the Christ. Yum. Anyway, this caused a whole lot of freaking and geeking lately when Webster Cook walked out of the Sacred God-cave at his college campus with an unmasticated and uningested chunk ‘o Jesus bread.

Before I get to the crux of this biscuit (Could you resist?), a little history they don’t generally teach in Sunday School. The Last Supper, where this whole communion thing comes from, was the Passover Seder, a ritual meal commemorating the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt and slavery, led by Moses. During the meal at various times, unleavened bread, or Matzoh is passed around and consumed. Wine also figures into the ritual at given intervals. At some point in this meal, Jesus threw away the script and decided to improvise. He either passed around Elijah’s cup (a.k.a. The Grail), or commented during one of the ritual toasts that the wine was his blood. He also declared the matzoh to be his body. Was he drunk, or overly enthusiastic about his religious roots, or should he be taken literally? There are two possible literal interpretations. The Bible makes no mention of Jesus being referred to as “cracker man”, or “vintage boy” after this incident, so we can rule out his being composed of those substances. The Bible also does not mention the Disciples suddenly discovering man meat in their mouths, or quaffing blood like vampires. Neither of these substances would be considered kosher, and no Jew would eat them even if it wasn’t Passover. I think it’s safe to say that Jesus meant this symbolically. I think he was declaring himself, “body and soul”, a Jew. Oh wait … that won’t do.

So why do the Catholics insist on an actual transubstantiation of cracker into flesh and wine into blood when these sacramental objects are blessed? To elevate the PREIST above the ranks of normal man, of course. What a powerful shaman to perform such a miracle! And then, there’s the whole feeding ritual! Grown men and women, on their knees, being fed and watered like baby birds by in loco deus, Father Father. God’s children indeed! It’s all just a magic act and a domination game, and it works.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Jesus really is made of crackers... and Satan is a Pulled-Pork Pladdah.

Saturday, July 05, 2008

Catching Up on a Few Things

I've been busy elsewhere lately, but a few things have crossed my radar.

Vatican Blesses Mary the Musical


The Vatican is staging its first ever musical next week, a dramatisation of the life of the Virgin Mary.
Mary of Nazareth, A Story that Goes On features a former Miss Italy contestant in the lead role and music by a composer more famed for scoring exotic B-movies.

However, unlike Jesus Christ Superstar or Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat, it has been officially blessed by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican secretary of state.

Sounds Frothilishiously craptacular. It also stands as absolute proof that the Vatican condones fictional bullshit. There is no historical record of the life of Mar-yam. There is no biblical record either, so this is not even Official Bullshit. I feel perfectly safe in asserting that there is little probability that her life (granting she ever really existed) resembled in the slightest the portrayal in this self-serving product-ion. I don't even have to see it. If it was sufficintly revisionist and simplistic to soothe away the original thoughts of the Unofficial Cult of the Alleged Virgin Mary, it's drek.

Let's review: why is Mary a virgin? Deuteronomy 22:

22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

But there's a way out for our poor damsel...

22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Why Ya-sif, you old scamp!

Women were their father's property, to be bartered for 50 shekels of silver, or three goats and a hand job, or whatever one could barter with the Old Man as fair exchange. As long as someone could be found to pay for the "spoiled goods" AS IF she were still a vigin, the whole stoning to death for harlotry thing could be avoided.

Something tells me that won't even make the Director's cut.


Blogging about such things as atheism in Iran can get you killed.

Iran Seeks the Death Penalty for Blogging

They work so hard to convince their brainwashed minions that they're the good guys and we're the evil ones. Assholes. Self-serving control freaks. Feral little manipulating shits. Your ant-hill-of-bullshit civilization can't collapse soon enough.


Ingrid Betancourt Thanks Gawd for her release.

This kind of behavior apparently wins her an audience with the Pope

It also raises a few questions.

1. Did she thank God for making her 6 year imprisonment part of HIS PLAN?

2. Does she think she was on some kind of waiting list? If so, can she explain why she should get preferential treatment over several other eggregious wrongs in this world that have required righting for an even longer period of time?

3. Is she thanking God for making the rebels stupid enough to fall for this ruse? Is that not the same as thanking God for making them stupid enough to be recruited into FARC in the first place?

4. Is she thanking God for making the Colombian operatives smart enough to pull this off? Is that not an insult to the men and women who trained them and selected them for the mission?

5. What part of this experience does she attribute to magical intervention? If she is merely thanking HIM for allowing this rescue to happen, is that not the same as thanking HIM for not preventing it? "Thanks for not being an asshole on this one, God!"

She also said:

"I am so happy to breathe the air of France. I owe France everything," Betancourt was quoted as saying by BBC news after she was flown in to Paris to meet President Nicolas Sarkozy."

She also thanked her rescuers. Does this make her just another opportunistic politician?


Jesse Helms and Bozo the Clown (Larry Harmon) died on the same day. I don't think I need to say anything more about that.

God's Song (Randy Newman) - The Truth

Because it keeps making so much sense. Selling this stuff makes people rich. Selling this stuff makes people powerful. Selling this stuff causes wars, and builds nations.
Selling this stuff does not make it true.

Posted in response to Ingrid Betancourt's thanking of Gawd for freeing her from the FARC rebels.