After attending an ecumenical prayer meeting (apparently I’m borderline masochistic) my friend asked me
“Did you hear the important point the reverend made? The one about God’s might? Neither did I.”
The punchline? She’s pentecostal. She hates sissy priests.
There is a saying that ‘There are no atheists in foxholes‘ – meaning that under extreme duress all people believe in, or hope for, a higher power.
Perhaps.
What is evident, though, is that in foxholes no-one believes in the Gods they claim to believe in. Because if they did believe in Yahweh, Allah, or whatever, they wouldn’t need foxholes: their god would protect them; and even if their God screwed that one, they’d be promptly whisked to paradise. If they really believed that, they’d have nothing to worry about.
So what is a religious person doing in a foxhole? Most likely they are afraid of meeting their god, and hope for a truly nice guy in the sky instead. They hope that their ‘real’ god doesn’t exist.
Hence the foxhole.
When Think Progress slammed Bishop Thomas Paprocki for his moronic ‘exorcism’ of same-sex marriage, a Lutheran believer voiced his dismay over the fact that the article wrote ‘the bishop’ without adding the distinction that Paprocki was ‘Catholic’:
I absolutely hate how the media uses words like “bishop” and “diocese” without specifying Catholic. The Episcopal bishop of Springfield – ie the same location – has been similarly right-wing and uninformed, yes, but most Episcopal and Lutheran bishops are not.[…] By not saying “Catholic bishop” – just “bishop” – Think Progress ignores those critical distinctions
Sorry, but that distinction may be relevant to believers, but it is completely lost on anyone rational. From the outside, the loony bin is just a big house; we really don’t bother with the inmates’ specific delusions. We don’t differentiate between those who think they are Napoleon and those who call themselves Cleopatra. It really makes no difference.
They are all simply nuts.
CNN has published a list of the world’s 10 most dangerous terrorists. That list is an outrage:
We can’t let this stand. We must remove the dominance of Islam on this list! Petition your representative at the UN to stop this gross injustice. Advocate a 10 point agenda for religions, continents and women to have at least 2 individuals in the top three each. And screw the math!
We must stop the dominance of Islamist terror.
Albert Einstein once quipped
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
With the possible exception of software testing, Einstein hit the nail on the head. It is, after all the foundation of science: the fact that you can repeat your experiment anywhere, and get the same results.
Praying does not work. I know. I’ve tried. Still broke.
Why do so many people keep praying?
One thing is sure: they’re not Einstein.
A believer once asked me why I was an atheist. He pointed out that it would be much easier to accept the love of god in my heart and live a life of contentment, knowing that I was going to be saved after I die.
He certainly has a point. Being an atheist isn’t easy. People are suspicious of you, assert that you have low moral standards, and seem compelled to bring up Hitler every other day. Your family is sometimes ostracized for not believing, and in some countries being an atheist can be dangerous, even lethal.
So why are we atheists?
We choose to be atheists. We choose to take responsibility for our actions, hold people accountable for what they do, and live our lives as ethical as possible.
We choose to be atheists and do all these things not because they are easy…
Oh, boy. Bishops and Stupid surely seem to go together like Nitro and Glycerine. The result is an equally explosive mix of hate and bigotry. After the Bishops of Limburg and the Twin Cities, Springfield Bishop Thomas John Paprocki has gone off the deep end.
In his frothing-at-the-mouth homily he exorcises the evils of same-sex marriage.
What is it with religious dimwits that keeps them up at night worrying about what other people are doing between the sheets?
What kind of neurosis compels someone to write the following dreck:
“I’m not saying that anyone involved in the redefinition of marriage is possessed by the devil”
Indeed – and I’m not saying Paprocki is a professional liar and child molester.
On his way to orbit, already high as a kite, he mentions in an aside that, anyway, his homily is just a minor exorcism, not a major one. But just what’s the difference between a major and minor exorcism? It’s like differentiating between Bigfoot and and the Bogeyman. Seriously. What’s wrong with you, Bishop?
Paprocki grouses on:
“Another major deception or distortion of marriage is the view that it is not ultimately about generating life, but rather is mainly about a romantic relationship designed for individual (not even mutual) fulfillment.”
Of course a catholic priest who can’t have sex nor marry would say something as stupid as that. Bishop: Sex is ultimately about generating life. Marriage is exclusively about social life.
But let’s be honest. Paprocki begins his homily by showing his hate credentials, trying in advance to shift the blame:
“It is not hateful to say that an immoral action is sinful.”
No. But it is hate to say that homosexuality is immoral. Nobody gives a rat’s ass about your concept of sin. Stop being a homophobic hate monger and start being a decent human.
I have some strange quirks. One of them is that, although not british, I like – and dare I say: comprehend – Monty Python. Not just ‘Life Of Brian’; to this day I can’t help but glance expectantly towards the door whenever I hear the words ‘Spanish Inquisition’.
Unfortunately, the world of humor is drifting perilously close to reality. For over a year now, Britain has a Minister of Faith. A few years ago I thought the Ministry of Silly Walks was a high point in comedy; now there is a Minister of Silly Thoughts.
Last week, the Minister, Baroness Warsi, on the subject of Islam extremism treated the british Parliament to quote from The West Wing, following it up with a particularly thin version of the No True Scotsman argument.
This has led me to believe (ha!) that the Baroness is now the prime candidate for the soon-to-be-formed Ministry of Silly Talks.
US comedian Rodney Dangerfield had a routine where he told outlandish stories that invariably ended with his catch-phrase: ‘just can’t get no respect.’
Religion, it seems, has the same problem: it tells outlandish stories that get no respect. At least that’s what I’m reminded of whenever someone tells me that religion should be more respected, or that I, in particular, should pay more respect to religion. Why do believers assert that religion is entitled to deep respect, or that we should respect people simply for being pious?
I think that it is natural not to respect religions:
Respect isn’t something owed.
It has to be earned.
In the 12th century the Northmen (also called Danes or Vikings) took to the sea and plundered all over Europe. In England and France, some monarchs thought it prudent to pay a tribute instead of being plundered. This tribute was called Danegeld. Needless to say, it didn’t work well, and only served to prolong the problem. In the end, they had to fight a larger, vastly richer, better equipped, and deadlier enemy.
Today the press censors itself in the hopes of not arousing the ire of muslims. People are denied freedom of speech for the same reason. Governments look the other way when religious people ignore human rights and shadow law is practiced. Those responsible once again believe that they are being prudent, that they are taking the safe approach.
They are not.
Instead of drawing a line in the sand, they try to placate the barbarians at the gate. This will not work. Whenever governments curtail fundamental rights in the ‘interest’ of peace with an aggressive, hostile, morally retarded religion, they are repeating past mistakes.
They are paying religious Danegeld.