Thursday, 27 September 2007

Larry Hooper: Danger of Coming Out of the Atheist Closet

On October 18, 2004, Arthur Shelton, a self described Christian and Eagle Scout, murdered his friend and roommate, Larry Hooper, because Hooper didn't believe in God.

On December 18, 2005, after many months of postponements, Arthur Shelton, with his defense attorney, Seymour Swartz, appeared at the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice in Detroit, Michigan, before Judge Gregory D. Bill to face charges of murder in the first degree brought by Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Christina Guiruis.

The trial began with the taped phone call Arthur Shelton placed to the Taylor police department in Taylor, Michigan, October 18, 2004, at precisely 12:44 AM. Shelton sounded calm and pridefull when he told the dispatcher he had just shot "the devil himself" with a revolver and a shotgun because "he (Hooper) didn't believe in God." Shelton told the dispatcher he was "still armed and ready to shoot again in case he moves. I want to make sure he's gone." When the dispatcher asked how many times he shot the victim Shelton replied, "hopefully enough."

Source: Parallel Politics and Comment

Now, I know (and hope) most Christians wouldn't take it upon themselves to "take out" their atheists friends like Arthur saw fit to do. Yet, there is an underlying message writ here: Arthur felt and "knew" that his action was justified. What brought about this rationale to justify murder? After all, doesn't it say in the bible "Thou shalt not kill"? Do those words have any meaning to Christians like Arthur? Apparently not. What else? Take this example a bit further in what I have argued in past posts (here and there); the bible is left for interpretation and cannot be relied upon for "rules to live by". The moral code of the bible is a mish-mash of contradictions in this regard.
So, if Arthur is an avowed Christian; Why did he see fit to ignore the sixth commandment of (G)od? Plainly, I could say that being an atheist forfeits your protection afforded in the sixth commandment. Or, any other infidel (yes, infidel is not exclusive to Islam).

Also, I see this coming a mile away, most Christians will say that he wasn't a "true" Christian. Why wasn't he? This argument is complete bullshit. After all, we've got plenty of denominational churches in this country (and world wide), some declaring that this/that/and the other and not a true church. Would Anglicans see fit to compromise theirs to attend and become members of a Pentecostal church? I wouldn't think so, because it's the "wrong" church. If Anglicans don't go to that church then it's obvious they don't think Pentecostals are "true" Christians (Shit! We are seeing the schism of the Anglican Church right as I type this). Otherwise we wouldn't see all these spin-offs of Christianity. Martin Luther comes to mind. Yeah, you know, the guy who hated Jews. I wonder where Hitler got his "final solution" from.

No matter how it's spun, religion is the "final solution" for all of us.

Google Search: "Larry Hooper" atheist
Atheist Blogroll Search: "Larry Hooper"

Interesting discussion at Digg - Murdered for being an atheist.
"This is so disgusting and disheartening. I myself am an eagle scout and describe myself only as agnostic, but the actions here are only more evidence that religion can bring out the most evil anyone has ever seen. After reading the article I am convinced that this was a product of upbringing, as it seems the boy's entire family behaves the same way and probably thought he did the right thing! I'm definitely siding with Richard Dawkins on this one..."
- njackson

"Trollogy" in a Nutshell: Blog Trolls (Guest Writing by L>T)

Of late, I have seen an incredible influx of posts by a couple of Christians on Atheisthaven. Most are either indignant with my nonchalance towards stupid piety and irrational belief, or are somewhat bamboozled by Larro's "take it or fuck off" attitude towards unsolicited proselytizing from some make-shift preachers. While some of these Christians may have captivated the thinking caps of our more intelligent atheist readers, their boundless enthusiasm and condescension usually means that any dialog between both camps usually descends into anarchy and chaos.

Blog trolls: The very term seems harmless enough: Descending from Norse mythology, trolls are mythical creatures of a smaller stature than their counterparts, the Giants.

Like the mythical creature, a blog troll is somewhat cumbersome: It sticks to a blog, makes incessant noises, attracts unwelcome attention, and worst of all, defiles the blog which an administrator has so painstakingly put up in the first place.

A fellow nonbeliever, L>T has kindly contributed her uneventful experience with a blog troll. Below is her account of her tale from the blogspot's crypt:

Written by L>T:

Troll Alert!

I wanted to do this Guest post because I have a personal vendetta against blog trolls & their tactical manipulation. I do whatever I can to diss them off, because of my own experience with blog trolls & a thorough disdain of insincerity & manipulation in any form. I think it's a good idea to be reminded of the troll once in awhile, just in case one is lurking about in a blog close to you.

My own experience with trolls

I had trouble with a women hating blog troll named BBC when I was a new blogger: It took me awhile to figure out what his game was, although my intuition was telling me something was up & I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with his raunchy jokes & sexist comments. He did have (& still has)his own blog so when I started getting really annoyed & suspicious, I looked into his archives & saw where he had bragged about some of the women he'd insulted & annoyed. After some internet detective work, I found out from some of the other women that besides insulting them, the troll even e-mailed them unsolicited pictures of his penis (This pathetic guy is 63 years old & toothless,). He finally pushed me into being so disgusted & angry that I decided to put up a post telling him to "Leave me the fuck Alone!" In the midst of my intense frustration, I drew an unflattering cariacature of him. It was pathetically juvenile, but after that I simply deleted everything he posted without a word. He finally went away.

Hoping that no one else falls for his tasteless, thoroughly disgusting blogging behavior, I simply trail him online & warn all his "new" internet victims anonymously about his behavior before he starts his shit with them.

Blog troll trademarks

A blog troll relies on other people's sincerity, sometimes their good nature, but mostly their continuing dialog with him.

The troll will manipulate the comment section to push his victims into compromising themselves. A typical pattern of trolls is to seem to "reasonably disagree" at first, but that is to get their foot in the door so they can rant off with the personal attacks that are always lurking just under the surface.

From my experience, It's not worth it to engage trolls in any discussion. It's not worth it to be polite.... In sum, it is not worth it to try to please any troll in any way because your anger, frustration & continued engagement is their sadistic, ultimate goal.

The plague of the Christian Troll

A lot of atheist blogs are often plagued with the Christian Troll Syndrome. The Christian troll seems to be particularly insidious because he hides his true nature under a cloak of passive piousness. The Christian troll knows he rattles rational people by his uncompromising Bible thumping behavior, & he gets a perverse justification from the vitriol hurled at him, because his sole aim to incite anger amongst the rankled atheists.

Do not Feed the troll

The time-honored solution to getting rid of a troll is "not to feed it": Simply put ignore the troll completely. It's not always easy, because:

#1 they will step up the personal attacks in order to attract your attention

#2 it is a typical human response to fight fire with fire, and trade blow for blow. Fighting back is pointless, though. Like the punching bag, the harder you hit, the harder it swings right back into your face. The only tactic is to delete & ignore them.


The Internet troll only exists when he is given a voice; without that, he is nothing.

Tuesday, 25 September 2007


Apparently, to most people, atheism is "wrong". According to a University of Minnesota study.

Atheists "are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public," according to a study by Penny Edgell, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota.

In a recent NEWSWEEK Poll, Americans said they believed in God by a margin of 92 to 6—only 2 percent answered "don't know"—and only 37 percent said they'd be willing to vote for an atheist for president. (That's down from 49 percent in a 1999 Gallup poll—which also found that more Americans would vote for a homosexual than an atheist.)
It's obvious that the American public wouldn't trust an atheist to be the best candidate for the Presidency of the United States. What picture does this paint for all of us? Atheists are distrusted. That's a no-brainer. What makes somebody, who believes in the Christian god, more trust-worthy? It's this; believers think that atheists are off their "moral rocker". As if atheists are incapable of discerning right from wrong. But if you claim to have Jesus in your life then I guess you're pretty much a shoe-in.

Never mind all that. Let's get back to the study and the poll. As most Christians believe that atheists are wrong. What does this say about Christians? To me it says, "I am better than you."; "Follow me and you will find the way to Jesus and live a true and better upright life than you live now."; "What you atheists believe is immoral and not conducive to the betterment of humankind."; etc, etc...

I really don't understand how it's immoral. How, by my very existence, can I not contribute anything of merit to humanity. That's bullshit. I do plenty outside of this blog. I get great satisfaction from employing my abilities to help those that can't help themselves. Not because I'm doing "gods work", but because of my own actions and deeds. My choice to do so carries with it a knowing that I live my life "in the right"; without accepting that a god had anything to do with it.

This is the conundrum. Accepting that a god influences our actions and influences our daily affairs. That's not free will. That's not free thought. Christians (and many other faithfuls) just can't come to grips with this. They live their lives believing that god has had a plan for them and has orchestrated their existence since the beginning of time. Having a religious faith is NOT free will. It's NOT free thinking. They are brought up to believe in one particular ideology and in most cases without question. Me, I've been brought up to believe nothing of the sort.

What's "wrong"? What's wrong is believing that other people are wrong, if whatever ideology you have been indoctrinated under disagrees with the "other" viewpoint. That's wrong. I know this will get turned around on me, such is the circular logic.

But hear this: the goal of religion is to use the tool of indoctrination to stamp out dissidence, to make everyone of "one mind", to make everybody conform to the status quo. What better way to manipulate the masses? If we all fall lock-step with these power plays then the majority rules and the minority gets trampled and silenced.

I AM IN THE MINORITY! Gladly. I AM different, I AM individual. I'm not so sure that the sheep really understand this. Because they are willing to follow [insert ideology] without being given the chance to believe it otherwise. Granted, I would hazard a guess that there are those who have been offered the chance to believe otherwise, yet give up the chance to think about it for themselves.

Does this thinking make me wrong? No, most Christians might say no, but of course it "does" and they are lying to themselves. They think they are being open-minded when in reality they can't stand and often despise and hate atheists. The study and polling data spells it out clearly. It is a litmus test.

If you don't believe in god you are shit and unworthy to participate in society.

On a side note. I've stumbled upon another blog saying that "the atheist movement" should not be compartmentalized to so-called "rational" discourse, because in essence we all (atheists) express our opinions in different ways.

I, for one, am happy to hear that there is no litmus test to have a "rational" discourse. I communicate how I see fit. I express myself how I see fit.

Guess what? If I feel somebody needs to shut the fuck up; or shove "it" up their fucking ass. I'll have no qualms of saying so. Not that I ever did. LOL.

Call me uncouth. Call me barbaric. Call me "wrong". Call me Larro.

Monday, 24 September 2007


I am me. I am who I am. I have a will of my own. The decisions in my life are only consequential to my own actions. Not in consequence to some invisible, make-believe entity. I take full responsibility for whatever I say or do, in regard to my fellow human beings. Society will see fit whether my actions or deeds have contributed to the betterment or detriment of humanity. Not a god.
The consequence or reward lies not in a so-called perceived notion of an afterlife. The real reward (or consequence) lies in the remembrance of me when I am gone. The thought I have of my descendents having any thoughts of me is pleasing. Not in the context of an afterlife. Just me here punching at this keyboard. A legacy as you will. To know that the real words that I put forth from my own thoughts will carry on for eternity, for the lives that will go before me, is priceless. I dwell on the future of mankind sometimes; in between trying to make ends meet materially.
I also think about those who profess to actually "know" what death will deliver. No one. No one can claim to know and tell me what death delivers afterward. Not by experience, not by actual account. They can only "prophesy" and quote "prophesies" about heaven or hell is. Of what the afterlife entails. In other words: guess.
I don't guess about death. It is what it is. Cessation of existence. Please imagine that it's so simple. We cease to be around our loved ones forever in life and in time. We are gone from their lives. Never to share a laugh, never to relate a life experience. I don't claim to know and prophesy that I will see them is a so-called afterlife that I can't prove is there. That would be giving them false hope. I would much rather live on in their memory, that that memory be passed on in future generations. I have no need to know in death that my memory live on. Only now, at this very moment do I care to know that I have made that memory...memorable.
This is death. After all, this is what we human beings worry so much about: dying. Why complicate it? Why not accept it for what it is? We cease to exist in the lives of those who know us.


Saturday, 22 September 2007

The Tragic Death of Hypatia: Revealing The Murderous Trait of Christianity & Religion

All too often, a potent mix of murderous intent & overzealous religious fervor can be a catalyst for disaster: From the disastrous Crusades (Raging from 1095 - 1291 A.D), launched by the erstwhile Vatican, to the disastrous writings and execution of the religiously-influenced book, The Hammer of the Witches (Malleus Maleficarum), history has shown us that whenever religion is at the threshold of power, it never ceases to inculcate its doctrines and destructive teachings to the masses, who will then unwittingly execute the will of the powers-that-be.

Unfortunately, the unquestioning trait which the Church has advocated for much of two millennial works wonderfully like a charm: Faith, in its most unadulterated form, involves an unthinking belief and obedience to doctrine and whoever is in charge, and it is this terrible, deceitful trait, over-glorified by the powers that be, that caused the death of one of the most enlightened, enigmatic scholar in Alexandria, Egypt.

Hypatia of Alexandria

Hypatia of Alexandria (350A.D? - 415 A.D)

One of the most enchanting and enlightened philosophers of her time, Hypatia was born around the time of A.D 350. Hypatia was also the daughter of Theon, who was her teacher and the last fellow of the Museum of Alexandria. As a Neoplatonist philosopher, Hypatia became head of the Platonist school at Alexandria in about 400.

Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria: Christian Mafia Leader

A Egyptian-born Greek, she was, quite unfortunately, born in a time where a complex brew of religious wrangling and secular learning were waging an underground war. The murderous hordes of pious Christians, under the leadership of the thug-like Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, were plotting to drive the likes of Hypatia and her "heretic" lot out of the Roman Empire. Cyril's aim was to ultimately create a puritan society with Christianity as the sole, official religion of Alexandria, and ultimately the Roman Empire.

One of the earliest recorded woman in the field of mathematics, astrology and astronomy, Hypatia's extensive background in education, plus her connections with the Library of Alexandria, meant that she was always the subject of controversy.

In addition, Hypatia's somewhat open and vocal support for the Prefect Orestes further earned her the ire of Cyril. A secular man who scoffed at Cyril's tyrannic ways, Orestes did not take a liking to Christianity's encroachment of secular affairs and governance (Sounds familiar???).

& so it was, that events took a turn for the worst, and in tandem with the nature of Christianity, opposition is always dealt with the most barbaric, treacherous manner: Death.

Death of Hypatia, Decline of Alexandria

Cyril's disdain for Hypatia and her "pagan" teachings reached boiling point: In A.D 415, as Hypatia was taking a ride on her carriage from lecture hall to her home, she was waylaid, dragged to a nearby church, where mob-rule took control. She was stripped, beaten and hacked into pieces by a pious, loving crowd of Christians, who, in spite of their overzealousness, did not forget to burn all remains and traces of her dismembered body.

This terrible tragedy was chronicled by church historian Socrates Scholasticus, who wrote in his
Ecclessiatical History:

Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church. And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort. This happened in the month of March during Lent, in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate, under the tenth consulate of Honorius, and the sixth of Theodosius [AD 415].

With the murder of Hypatia, Alexandria began to fall into a precipitous decline, as waves of scholars, fearful for themselves after witnessing the ignominious death of one of Alexandria's brightest, left Alexandria for fear of their own safety. Alexandria had, with the actions and jealous whims of one religion and a crazy cleric, lost her place as the chief center of learning.

For his part in the murder, Cyril was venerated by latter generations of pious Christians:
He was declared a doctor of the Universal Church in 1882.

Religion: A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy???

With its rich history of book burning and murder, Christianity, like Islam, has an incredibly huge amount of unspeakable deeds to answer for: Unfortunately, the Church's victims are long dead, and they are allowed to run roughshod, scott free for much of two millennial.

As Jebus prophesies accurately, without ambiguity:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

Christianity and murder: Blood-brothers in arms. A chilling thought indeed.

Tuesday, 18 September 2007

Our Civil Liberties: Why They are Important and How Atheism is Targetted for "Shut Down"

I sit here cruising the net and I can't help but purposefully look for stuff relating to this issue. Much of what I come across is relatively innocuous: a post on a blog, a comment on a blog, a small article in some far off local newspaper, a comment on an article in some far off local paper; what have you.

What resurfaces time and again are peoples notions of civil liberties. How often have I heard that the ACLU "needs to be stopped"? I can't tell you.

Some past post comments here on Atheist Haven (yes, I'm pointing to the fundies) carry with them an air of...not disdain necessarily, but "wrongfulness" of the atheist mind-set. As if what is "wrong" should probably be snuffed out; left with no voice. Here we venture forth into minority rights. After all atheists do comprise a minority of people. The same could be said of black people in the run-up to the civil rights movement in the 60s.

Ok, now I have to talk about it. One particular comment before I joined Beast in the endevour known as Atheist Haven, Shaun said that my wife should be ashamed (if she be a Christian) for marrying an atheist. Taken into context; this would mean that Shaun believes that it is wrong for a Christian to marry an atheist and I'm assuming that he wouldn't have any qualms about a law being passed to bar this type of union. This is the utmost example of bigotry. Atheists, as a minority, are unworthy of the rights of the "faithful" majority.

Currently this debate is a firebrand amongst the gay and fundamentalist communities. The right to marry the opposite gender. So far it isn't illegal for me to marry my wife, be she Christian, Muslim, Jew, Black, Hispanic or Russian. It is illegal in much of the United States for gays to have the same benefits afforded to same-gendered couples.

Why do I bring up the gay marriage issue? Because the rationale is based entirely on the Christian biblical/moral code. If this kind of sentiment can shape the the law of the land; what can stop it in other aspects of our lives? And how has it affected our lives already?

As much as I like conspiracy theories, this is no conspiracy theory. Far from it. It's real. It's "wrong" for a man to have a marital relationship with another man and conversely it is "wrong" for a woman to have marital relations with another woman. I don't have to point any further than conversations I've had with Christians about this. It goes against god. Period. Hence, the infringement of civil liberty in this regard.

My main point is that we atheists, as minorities, are entitled to civil liberties as well as the next person. Currently this is so, but with the burgeoning rise of the atheist voice comes an equal rise of Christian enmity stemming from their "faith" being called into question and/or it otherwise being scrutinized. What else gets their goat is the rise of secularism in society and within the state.

This I think is the real hot-bed issue. After all with a true secular society comes virtual abolition of religion within the public sphere. This is probably why we are seeing increased enrollment of "Christian children" into private charter schools rather than send them to public schools that are secular. On the face of it that's fine. In the end though these types of schools are essentially Christian factories churning out citizens that will probably have a particular bias against secularism. Because they themselves have no experience with an education system that's secular. Hypothetically, some of these citizens are going to go on to become leaders in our communities having been raised with a bias FOR Christianity. I would hope that these citizen-leaders would embrace the notion of secularism, but that hope is ever so finite.

What happens when these citizen-leaders reach into politics? Under my assumption they will invariably tow the line of Christian mores. Generation by generation we could very well see the erosion of secularism in society and with that will come the erosion of our civil liberties.

So why are our civil liberties important?


Atheist Blogroll Search: "Civil Liberty", Secularism, "Charter School", ACLU, "Minority Rights", "Civil Rights", "Gay Marriage", "Christian children", "Public Education"

"What Would Jebus Do?" - Dubious Jesus Morality In The 21st Century

Rev it up, Jebus Fan!........The Son of Gawd Is In The House!

Every so often, I am often reminded incessantly, both online and offline, about the supposed virtues of the God-man, Jebus. Christians of all creeds and denominations revere him, even though he doesn't have much to say (as fashioned by the Gnostic Gospels of Matthew, John, Mark and Luke). Jebus, if he ever did existed, also did not leave any written works behind, and what little we know of this curiously benign, yet extravagantly lauded God-man figure of the Gospels, was that he was born to a carpenter family, and not much can be gleaned from his childhood. Of course, his indigenous disciples spread his "Good Word", though curiously they too, left no personal writings of their beloved Messiah (Apparently, illiteracy and Religion work hand in hand).

The rest, as we say, is history: He was persecuted by the Pharisees, was sentenced to die on the crucifix by Pontius Pilate, walked through the jaws of death and arose three days later, to the chagrin of his disciples and his frenzied followers, before subsequently being "beamed up" to the high heavens (Beam me up, Lordy!).

An incredibly fabulous tale, and an equally incredulous one at that. While it is easy to banish such fabrications as sheer lunacy, the belief in the Jewish superman is very much well-entrenched in almost every Christian denomination.

From cheesy, "what would Jesus do" themes to enactments of the Crucification during Easter, the myth of Jesus and his supposed morals are part and parcel of Christianity. For Christians, Jesus is indeed a paragon of virtue, held in high esteem and worshiped with ardent religious fervor.

Herein lies the million-dollar question: Can the "moral" lessons of a supposed God-man borne to a vestal virgin be of any use in a modern, 21st century setting?

In order to solve this riddle, I have decided to "fabricate" my own Jebus tales: Juxtaposing actual Jebus quotes with a more mundane, 21st century setting, I shall proceed to ignite the laughters of my infidelic fans. As for you Jebus folks who might be offended, stop and turn the other way.

1. Jebus Advocating Disobedience?

Father: Son, you should stop drinking. It ain't good for the liver.

Son (Indignant): Shut the fuck up, father, you ain't me, and you ain't gonna rule over my life.

Father (raises voice): Such manners! Pray, tell, me, what manner of friends have you been hanging around with lately?

Son (Laughs, sneers arrogantly): Damn it, father, that's none of your fucking business. After all, I shall be duly awarded for my insolence?

Father (looks on furiously, raises his hand, rather to strike): What??? How dare you! You brat........

Son (Shouts): Wait, dad! Didn't you say that I should emulate the deeds and teachings of Jebus???

Father: Yes, but what has that got to do with your outrageous attitude???

Son (takes out holy babble, and drones): Matthews Chapter19:29 says: "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." ........

2. Jebus & The Fig Tree

The Accursed Fig Tree

Jebus (holding fig tree): I am returning this fig tree.

Florist (Examines fig tree): Oh ok, let me check.........the leaves look worms, gee, looks pretty healthy to me. Well trimmed and proper too. Any reasons why you are returning this fig tree? After all, you bought this fig tree yesterday.

Jebus (Irritated): Are you a secular moron? Look at the fruits of this accursed fig tree! It isn't even ripening, for Jebus' sake!

Florist (smiles, trying to contain laughter): Oh.......the fruits. This is not riping season, Sir......I will suggest......

Jebus (Hot, flustered, and wrathful, smashes fig tree pot to the ground): That's it! No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever! (Mark 11.21)

3. Jebus & His Sword: Holy Vengeance?

Jebus Fan: Oh, its you, Jebus! Our messianic father figure! Such passionate, soulful eyes! And the hair........pray, dear sir, what shampoo does ye use?

Jebus (irritated): Get away from me, you moron!

Jebus fan (Looks Confused, holds out advertisement): But.......but.......didn't you write in this advertisement that you are a benevolent messiah? Why, my lord? Why the nasty diatribes?

Jebus (In an authoritarian voice): Get this in your head, once and for all:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)
(Jebus draws hidden sword, and cuts Jebus fan into two. Jebus is subsequently captured, charged and sentenced to life imprisonment. Praise the Lord. )

More Jebus love, anyone???

Monday, 17 September 2007

Why I'm Here

I'm an atheist and I don't care about the argument of whether a god or god's exist or not. My premise is that I don't want to sit here and argue bullshit that gets thrown back and forth. The same bullshit over and over. It may have been pertinent the first time around, but after a while it gets really old. Because neither on one side or the other is going to convince either party otherwise.

This is why I much prefer discussing current events. For this simple reason: whatever happened 1000, 2000 or 200,000 years ago is history. What can we as human beings; Muslims, Christians, Jews, bushmen, Slavs, Finns, Mayans, Taoists, Buddhists, atheists and whatever -ists and -ans are left; do to move forward and do our best to fashion a future that best describes the nearest we can come to a utopia.

The only way I see this coming about is strict secular policy that in and of itself is very loose with liberty. Of course there has to be a balance, but in my opinion a moral code dictated by religious ideology has no part in my interpretation. Because a moral code can just as easily be found in tribes with no organized religion whatsoever. A clue that religious morality has always been obsolete, since it's inception. Back to this balance; human beings know what is right and wrong, and Christians (or any other faith for that matter) have absolutely no monopoly or infallibility in this department...

A departure: If religious moralists think that their code is THE right one. The RIGHT way to live. How do they account for (or view) non-believers (as apparently a god delivered unto whatever prophet THE right codes that we should all live by)? When we as non-believers don't believe in this, it's obvious we are viewed as being "in the wrong". How wrong? Evil? I guess so, because what I've heard in these post comments is that we non-believers are absolutely deserving of hell and eternal suffering. And possibly my wife (if she were a Christian) because it's shameful to marry an atheist (that's a whole other post coming).

I don't want to post about the metaphysical. On occasion, yes, I will engage in this discussion but I prefer to stay away from it (because "I don't care" for it). Please, when it warrants the premise of the post stick to the topic, as it gets kinda stale rehashing the existence of the Cosmic McMuffin over and over again (kudos to my good and personal friend Bob for coining that term. And I double-dare any of you fundies to comment there. You'll get nothing but...well, I'll let him speak for himself.)

Let's get back to "goodness" and "badness". Zoroastrianism really skewed the notion of human nature and it's sense of morality. There's no such and easy thing as the black and white of morality. Never has been. Seems to me that most devout faithful have a notion of what is right and wrong for everybody on this earth. I don't see it that way.
Here I really hope to lead into the root of my concerns. What is "right" and "wrong". What is the punishment for being "wrong"? And NO I don't refer to some mythical nether-world. What laws should dictate a punishment for being morally wrong? Who's laws? What society? Does this apply to me (as an unbeliever) just because I don't ascribe to these effervescent laws? I suppose if I were a blasphemer I should have my tongue cut out of my head, huh? Is that a rightful punishment? Is it justified?

If some of you answered yes, then you do not believe in freedom and liberty. According to me should you be jailed and sentenced for hate crimes? No. Not for speech, not for speaking your mind. Actions speak louder than words. That's why we need laws specifically targeted towards acts of this kind.

I'm ending this by saying that everybody has a true right (in my book) to say whatever the hell they want to say. But if it infringes on true liberty those words shall never be made law.

Thank you. 4 beers.

Sunday, 16 September 2007

Larro: A Brief Introduction

I'm going to begin this first post by drawing on a comment by Shaun. This started out as a comment on Blasphemy: A Blameless Crime?, but I found it turning out to be an excellent introduction for myself. The comment starts as follows:

Shaun, you said, "[I/Larro] think/hope/wish whatever, that God does not exist"

To be honest I could really care less about that. Really!

I've given up quite a long time ago about debating the existence of a god with the faithful. Not that I don't have any argument against it, but this: It's the whole point of faith. I can't argue against someones personal faith. If somebody feels so strongly in a belief, I am not even going to waste my breathe in convincing them otherwise.

Here is my position. I'm not out to debunk anybodies faith (as much as I relish the thought; and on occasion I may succumb to this). What I am about are, the social issues and how people of faith affect the current political and civil debate. This is ultimately what concerns me: this unseen and oft-times obfuscated interjection of religion and politics affects me as well as the next person. This is why atheists need to get their shit together and REALLY organize.

I guess what I am saying is that I am a very, very, very strict secularist. Don't get me wrong I am still a civil libertarian to a degree as well; kids can still pray in school of their own accord, I have no problem with that. Yes, contrary to bullshit arguments that there is NO prayer allowed in school, prayer itself is still allowed in schools here in the U.S.

I believe in freedom and liberty for all. If anybody wants to really know anymore about my views then feel free to ask and I will try to answer to the best of my ability.

Saturday, 15 September 2007

Blasphemy: A Blameless Crime?

Since the advent of religion within the echelons of civilization, religious sects have, for the longest time, fought against their various rivals and secular forces to secure a strong, unshakable position within the highest echelons of power in a bid to wield absolute control over the ignorant masses. Having secured a snug, comfortable position beside the Monarchy (or any other tyrant and despot of the era), a religious cult will, with calculated malice and ill-intent, declare its victory in an almost unctuous and unabashed manner, and how religion goes about in securing and fortifying it's precarious position at the top is often a subject of controversy.

As with all manners of tyrannical organizations, once religious organizations have sniffed and sneaked their way into positions of power, one of it's very first moves will be hinged on silencing the opposition. In the case of religion, one of the most ostensible traits within the religious hierarchies has to be blasphemy, a somewhat innocuous, blameless and imaginary crime to negate and destroy possible opposition towards an official religion.

The Issue of Blasphemy

The origins of the word "blasphemy" is a mishmash of several languages: "blasfemer" from Old French, "blasfemen" from Middle English & "blasphemein" from Greek.

Generally speaking, blasphemy refers to a staunch refusal to submit to the rigid, stupid emotions and reverence with regards to stupid piety and undue respect towards a religion and its pantheon of deities or a singular deity. Under blasphemy laws, anyone who is caught defaming or verbally abusing the deity in question can be liable for charges, and depending on which century and era one is born and the country he or she is raised, charges of blasphemy can be dealt with utmost severity, some of which do involve lobbing off heads off heretic shoulders.

Sometimes, the act of blasphemy can be enacted beyond mere words: Flushing a Quran down the toilet, for example, is bound to invoke murderous cries of beheading and other heinous deeds from Islam's fundamentalist crooks. Taking a piss at a holy cross may also trigger calls for secular punishment, especially in quasi-democratic countries such as Malaysia and Singapore.

While many secular countries do not enforce and impose blasphemy laws upon their citizens, many European countries have kept pre-existing anti-blasphemy laws which have existed for as long as mainstream Christianity has endured, and for inexplicable reasons these ignominious laws have been left untouched, even though they have long outlived their usefulness.

Blasphemy: A Crime Punished By Cold-Blooded Murder

When religion is concerned, the crime of blasphemy is viewed with murderous contempt, and that expunging blasphemous infidels is a divine duty to be executed with the most deadly efficiency.

Leviticus Chapter 24: 16 puts it succinctly:

"He who blasphemes the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: the foreigner as well as the native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death."

Islam, as usual, is never far behind in its hot pursuit against heretics and infidels of any sort:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; " [Surah Al-Maidah 5:33]

Recommendation 1805 of the EU Court

Most disturbingly, however, is the European Union's keenness at applying such archaic laws: Ever since the outcries caused by the Danish cartoon fracas, the EU has become an unwitting lackey to these fundamentalist bastards who wished to impose their "God-given" right to shut up the voices of the disbelieving public:

In June 2007, Recommendation 1805 was adopted by the Parlimentary Assembly of the Council of Europe which has, in its tenets, stated provisions against "blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion. " In a bid to ease secular voices and supporters of free speech, this erstwhile "recommendation" has also issued a number of guidelines that are supposedly in tandem with Articles 10 (Freedom of Expression) & 9 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion).

In a bid to placate the dissenting voices against free speech and equal rights, religious groups have attempted to abuse the Danish Cartoon incident to impose their views upon the EU. Religion, it seems, is now deemed untouchable to the common masses. You may abuse the government, you may abuse corporations, but if you wish to abuse religion, then woe to you!

Blasphemy: My God-Damned Right To Free Speech!

While some people may view this issue with maligned triviality, certain implications cannot be ignored. Free speech is an area of concern: The right to blasphemy is an individual right to free speech, and how the individual expresses his or her indignant feelings towards a said deity should not be viewed upon as an infringement of secular law.

While some may lament that flushing bibles and qurans down toilets is an outrageous travesty, I see no issue beyond what is really a strictly mechanical affair: Bibles and Qurans don't exactly mix well with toilets, and choking up public toilets is an issue of civility and inconvenience, and should a crime be charged upon the offender, it should be a case of vandalism rather than a blameless crime of blasphemy.

Free speech aside, blasphemy is a frivolous charge: Any act that is viewed as an intent to insult a deity can be misconstrued as an innocuous attempt at insulting a deity. If I were to consume pork in public, wouldn't that be an insult against the tenets of Islam? Should I be punished for my "insolent deed" too?

Good riddance to blasphemy laws, I say. If these deities whom these fervent supporters go through such lengths to protect are of any use at all, they should stand up, speak up and defend themselves, rather than going through such hoo-has and resorting to manipulating the legal systems. Our planet already has one too many a deity vying for a coveted place alongside secular law.

As for me, blasphemy is a good exercise to improve my blood circulation: Screaming "Fuck you, God" five days a day in the direction of Washington DC tends to trigger and invigorate the release of "good humors".

Go ahead. Commit your very own blasphemy today, before the laws of your country start to shut you up!

-“Lycurgus, Numa, Moses, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, all these great rogues, all these great thought-tyrants, knew how to associate the divinities they fabricated with their own boundless ambition." - Marquis de Sade, 1740-1814

Tuesday, 11 September 2007

Walking the Tight Rope: Apostate Muslims Fighting For their Right To Non-Belief

Ehsan Jami, founder of "Committee for Ex-Muslims"

For ex-Christians such as myself, the idea of apostasy has never been a life-threatening issue. While fence-sitting, backsliding Christians do have a tight time struggling between the choice of dogma and free thought, Christianity, in sum, has become secularized by four centuries of the Renaissance and The Enlightenment Age: The Catholic Church, once indispensable in European politics, is now a pale shadow of its former self, expending much of its resources resolving lawsuits filed by paedophile victims against their wayward priests. When the Church isn't having its hands full with these lawsuits, its head honcho, the indomitable Darth Vader Pope pops out of his shell from time to time making next-to-useless comments against abortions, Science and other devilishly secular issues.

That cannot be said of Islam, however: Harsh, rigid religious quotes, adhered by fundamentalists and religiously indoctrinated mullahs, apply the Syariah strictly to the letter, and are not inclined to indulge in mere religious moderation.

Apostasy, a rather blameless brand labeled for people who have decided to abandon their religion, is the religious equivalent of treason, and like all monotheistic religions, Islam imposes extremely harsh penalties upon apostates:

Sura 4: 88-89 reads: "Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard."

Cold-blooded murder is the penultimate punishment for infidels, and in the eyes of Islam, the deed of apostasy warrants the punishment. Being a Muslim is a brand that sticks for life: If you are born into a Muslim, you do not get to choose your identity. You must adhere to Islam and its tenets till your very last breath.

And that is exactly what a bunch of Muslim apostates in Holland is trying to defy, which, in my opinion, requires bucket loads of almost knightly bravery:

Sep 10 2007:
Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith
by Times Online, David Charter

A group of young Muslim apostates launches a campaign today, the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America, to make it easier to renounce Islam. The provocative move reflects a growing rift between traditionalists and a younger generation raised on a diet of Dutch tolerance. The Committee for Ex-Muslims promises to campaign for freedom of religion but has already upset the Islamic and political Establishments for stirring tensions among the million-strong Muslim community in the Netherlands. Ehsan Jami, the committee's founder, who rejected Islam after the attack on the twin towers in 2001, has become the most talked-about public figure in the Netherlands. He has been forced into hiding after a series of death threats and a recent attack. The threats are taken seriously after the murder in 2002 of Pim Fortuyn, an antiimmigration politician, and in 2004 of Theo Van Gogh, an antiIslam film-maker. Speaking to The Times at a secret location before the committee's launch today, the Labour Party councillor said that the movement would declare war on radical Islam. Similar organisations campaigning for reform of the religion have sprung up across Europe and representatives from Britain and Germany will join the launch in The Hague today. "Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up," Mr Jami said. "In Islam you are born Muslim. You do not even choose to be Muslim. We want that to change, so that people are free to choose who they want to be and what they want to believe in.

Apparently, rapid secularization has begun to dawn upon the next generation of Muslim youths, that theology and theocracy are viruses of both the mind and politics respectively. A commendable deed, for the threat against apostates is definitely not mere lip service.

On the anniversary of 911, I feel that it is time for us, as secular citizens, to reflect upon the disastrous consequences of religion and its devastating effect it has, both in our minds and our physical well-being. Instead of dwelling in stupid piety and joining the Bush Administration's wacky "Remembrance Prayer" bullshit, perhaps it is time for us, especially atheists, to stand up and scream in unison: "Enough is enough". No more kowtowing to fundamentalists. No more whitewashing of Islam with the"Islam is a religion of peace" bullshit and start staring into the eye of the problem: Religion is a primary source of terror and unsolicited violence.

And who better than these Dutch apostates to start the ball rolling?

Saturday, 8 September 2007

Government-Sponsored Bullshit: No Tax On Fengshui Property Sales

Secular Law Tips Its Scales Once Again, This Time on The Side Of Superstition

In my previous posts on religion, I wrote about how tax grants can often be bantered about for religious organizations, even though most of them are not exactly operating under "not-for-profit" or charitable statuses.

Why religion is given such financially lucrative tax breaks with regards to their modus operandi is beyond me: Anything and everything that is tagged with faith, superstitious piety and unquestioning belief is given a width berth, to the extent that even secular law can be circumvented to accommodate ridiculously fraudulent beliefs.

Sep 6, 2007
Court accepts bad fengshui as valid reason to sell property

IN WHAT is believed to be the first case in Singapore , the High Court on Thursday ruled that bad fengshui is a legitimate reason for the owners to sell their property, for which they should not be taxed on the profits. It ruled in favour of a couple who argued that they had been compelled to sell their Waterside apartment they have owned for just over two years on this ground - and not because they had intended it as a trade. The taxman had taxed the couple on the gains they had made from the sale of the Waterside flat, as well as three other properties, asserting that the couple were engaging in the trading of properties. The sales took place between 1993 and 1996.

I do wonder if such a ruling is even constitutional in the first place: But the idea that fengshui is any legitimate reason to uphold taxation on the profits of property sales seems to reek of soft, warm, stinking piles of bullshit.

Such a ruling will only serve to promote superstition: By tacitly promoting tax breaks for people who sell their flats and demanding for taxbreaks on the whimsical claim of bad fengshui thereafter, what kind of message is our government sending to the masses?

If our legal courts insist on basing their rulings on ancient, religious rituals that have no basis of practicality and scientific validity, I doubt I will have sufficient trust in Singapore's legal system to give me any kind of fair trial.

Why I Write What I Write

The fallacy of hindsight, it seems, is one of life's ignominious bitches: When I started this blog, I did it under no delusions that this would be a popular blog.

My posts, if anything else, is verbose, and almost every article I have written is a long, tedious read. Although I have attempted, more or less to circumvent this problem by the use of pictures, blogspot can be a huge wussed up pain in the ass when it comes to pasting pictures. In short, I am not looking forward to a huge readership.

Writing does require a certain amount of brain work, and some readers have, at one time or another, asked about my agenda and my motives with regards to what they deem as an unnecessary expending of time and effort.

First and foremost, I think every human individual has an obsessive need for expression. Some people hunt, some go for kart racing, and so on, and as for myself, writing has a therapeutic effect upon my inner self (Some would call it a soul, but I prefer not to juxtapose myself with any form of religious intent).

I know some people feel aggrieved with my writings. I have said and expressed my feelings without reservations, and I probably should, with hindsight, establish a more coherent agenda.

But truth be told, I have none. I guess this blog is a good online congregation for atheists who have an axe to grind, although in recent weeks I have noticed a surge in Christians who have come here to express their views, and I have also taken to task a couple of Christians who attempted to destroy the liberties that I have granted to just about everyone else.

I will continue to write, and to a certain extent, allow readers to post, simply because it find it invigorating to post my thoughts and what I feel is a grave injustice being inflicted by the unruly, pious mobs on this little planet.

For Christians who wish to spill their vitriol, I think it is a good time for me to remind you that curtailing someone's right to free speech is a definite no-no. I have allowed free speech to reign, and if you wish to take that right from others, then me, the "deity" of this blog, will impose some godless justice upon you.

And given the fact that I have a full-time job as well as a freelance one, debates may or may not be entertained. If you wish to debate with me, keep it civil within reasonable limits. Ad hominems are a complete waste of my time.

Lastly, I wish all readers the best of luck in your personal endeavors.

Viva Atheism!

Monday, 3 September 2007

Part 2- Inventing Your Own Religion

In the first part of the series, I mentioned how religion, if managed with business-like savvy, can be one of the most lucrative business schemes ever imagined. Given the huge market and ridiculous tax breaks which few organizations can ever boast of without being the least bit charitable, the next stage, it seems, is to invent your own religion.

While it is possible to start a religious organization without inventing a new religion, the challenge, it seems, lies with having to vie for the attentions of the flock with other similar, anti-rational institutions. Besides, these staid old timers have been around for so long, trying to cut into a piece of the heaven's pie is by no means a simplistic task.

Besides, forming a religion is chic: Not only can you be proclaimed as a Founding Father, messiah, prophet or even a deity; you can still get a shot at having your name etched into the pages of posterity.

Laying the Groundwork for Your Religious Institution

Before you begin building the proverbial castle in the air, you will need to prepare the groundwork for your religion to flourish: How well your religion will progress will be determined by the elaboration of your groundwork. An excellent network should possess fundamentally obsessed followers, plus a continuous flow of cold, hard cash.

With this in mind, let us proceed into the religious world of deceit.

1. Inventing a New Deity

While detractors may claim that it would be quite incredulous and impractical to actually introduce a new deity in modern 21st century civilization, one can actually find evidence of irrational belief in a myriad of bizarre, crazy cults that have surfaced in recent decades: The cult surrounding the pudgy, self-proclaimed deity, otherwise known as Sai Baba, and the really "unscientific" religion named, rather dubiously, as "Scientology".

Like fairies and pink unicorns, deities are really figments of man's demented imagination: All you need is a little imagination and a couple of persuasive tongues and a new deity can emerge amongst the ignorant populaces.

Because deities can neither be proved nor disproved, any belief in your new deity is dependent on one emotionally-charged trait: Faith. If you believe in God, no reason can touch you. Reason can be suspended, at least momentarily, when faith is aroused: Ask the regular Christian why he goes to church every other Sunday; he will say it is on the basis of his faith. Ask him why he goes to the doctor instead of the church every time he comes down with influenza, he will tell you a completely different tale.

Like the Sai Baba, you can claim godhood or sainthood: If you wish to go down such a path, a few magic tricks will come in handy. Stupid children's party tricks, such as turning wine into soda water, walking on sewer water (kind of stinks, but that is the price to pay for being a fucking deity) and the like will enhance the authenticity.

If you prefer not to subject yourself to such strenuous training, a prophet's identity will do. You could, from time to time, roll on the floor, at the same time foam in your mouth, as you feign the "God is speaking through me" trick to hoodwink your enthralled flock. Of course, some infidels will probably think that you might have been exhibiting all the medical signs of epilepsy. Your response? Fuck them. What the hell do they know, those stupid infidels. You are the self-professed emissary of a deity, and the only thing that should matter is, the folks believe in your bullshit!

Whenever possible, stick to one deity. Or try churning out different deities and claim that they are one and five or six deities at the same time. The key is to confuse and conquer: Generate publicity, generate ratings, and rake in the cash. "Confuse and Conquer" is the ultimate key to a resounding victory.


The world's major religions need them. From the ancient Jewish torah to the Islamic Quran, the writing of holy books is of utmost importance to any religion.

With a religious book, you will be able to secure the hearts and minds of your flock: Not only will you be able to drum your own set of dumb, ubiquitous moral codes into their faith-induced brains; it will also bring focus and unity within your own congregation.

Keep in mind though: A great religious book should never be rational: It must be boisterous, absolutist and finally, tyrannical. Words such as "however", "if" or "whenever" should be limited to the lowest denominator.

Whenever possible, write in obscure, unfathomable parables: That way, your congregation will waste precious time theorizing your bullshit, and such ambiguity will provide you with ample preaching material, as you and your religious leaders begin to proselytize and "spread the Good Word".

A holy book will chart the destiny of your new cult. Your followers will refer to your holy book for their moments of inspiration, as well as their daily indoctrination.

3. The Cardinal Sin

In any religion, it is imperative that the subject of sin comes into the picture. Fabricating false notions of wrongdoings will provide your fledging religion with a narrow focus, plus giving you a chance to wield your "supreme" powers as dedicated by your deity or yourself, if you intend to be the erstwhile deity.

To add more meat to your bullshit, you may consider etching a set of rules/commandments, preferably in sets of tens, hundreds, or anything that goes in multiples of ten (the human brain does harbor a strange obsession with the figure 10) on a piece of tough, almost unbreakable material with regards to the major "sins" which cannot be committed under any circumstances: Rocks, stones and other carbon-based minerals will do just fine. Forget paper or wood: These types of flimsy, organic material rots within a short time frame, and you will want something that should hopefully be the chief cornerstone of your nascent religion for hopefully a long, long time.

Remember to add special exclusivity in your commandments: Apostasy is a sign of grave weakness for any religion, and you will do well to abide by this unspoken rule of religion. Assign the gravest possible punishment for apostasy, and your flock will be scared of out their shitless wits. Never, ever give a single inch of ground to infidels.

4. Heaven, Hell, & The Fictitious Devil

Let's face it; every major religion has a hell and a heaven. Working in tandem with the "Cardinal Sin" doctrine, the "carrot and stick" theory is a time-proven method, used to restrain the faithful from ever leaving their flock.

By blocking rational thought and insinuating the Pascal's wager, you will successfully deduce the backsliding believer's choice into two alternatives: Believe in your deity, and you stand a chance in heaven. Suspend belief, and there is an awful chance of an eternal barbecue.

To further tighten mental and emotional control, invoke the Demon: A scary, throng-carrying horned (or horny) Beast, condemned by you and your deity, always ready to snare unbelievers with temptations, trials and tribulations.

With the inception of the legendary Beast, the theological masquerade is complete.


Behind every successful religious leader, is a very successful clique. You will need to recruit a very talented, glib-tongued and loyal band of recruits, who will do your donkey's work of spreading the Good Word.

Like the 12 (or 13, if you include Judas) disciples of Christ, this very tight-knit band of disciples will become your family: In reality, these band of brothers will be your partners in crime. They will prepare your groundwork, preach your word, and spread the good news. If your pioneer batch does spectacularly, chances are, your religion will flourish with great aplomb.

You will do well to treat this band of brothers with utmost respect and dignity: Any apostates from this pioneer clique can lead to your precipitous downfall. Typically, apostates from internal cliques are never good news for any fledging creed. If you can keep them happy, your success is almost complete.


When your religious leader told you that religion was a personal relationship with God, he or she was lying outright in your face. Let's face it; religion is a multi-billion dollar business. It is estimated that money generated by churches in the US of A is more than enough to feed the world's hungry people for months on end.

Depending on your motives and personal greed, the amount of tithe you would wish to exact from your flock will be directly proportional to their paychecks. While it is perfectly fine to demand a certain portion of their wages as a minimum tithe, aggressive demands may alienate certain sections of your flock and force them to leave. Leverage your stock, and you may well be on your way to a thriving cult.

There are certainly a myriad of innovative ways to exact monetary gains from your faithful: Paypals, Mastercards and other modes of payment can be integrated via your religious website. Spread your tentacles far and wide, and watch with child-like wonder as the dollars start bludgeoning your bank account.


As your religious flock gains strength from increasing numbers, you may have to find a permanent roof over their heads. Initially, you may be renting out a dinghy little building to hold your sermons, but surely, as you gain financial stability, you may find that space is a premium you cannot scrimp on. Buying large swathes of land is a good option: Having your religious institution with land to spare will allow room for expansion. Or better yet, purchase prime estate: A posh religious building in a swanky Hollywood precinct is bound to attract the swanky Hollywood stars to your fold. The likes of Tom Cruise and John Travolta are literally walking advertisements for your religious cause, that is, if you manage to garner them into your fold.


Assuming that your cult manages to survive the initial stages of development, it is inevitable that you will face opposition from infidels who cannot stand the sight of your Holiness. When you begin to face serious opposition, fret not, for this is good news indeed: It is a sign that you have achieved so much prestige and success, that people are no longer laughing now. Initially, they may have passed you and your little band of followers as ignorant buffoons. But they are no longer laughing now. Praise the Lord.

At this point, it is time for you to stand up and be counted.

Your enemies will include:

i. Ex-members/followers of your congregation:

Beware the treacherous turncoats. Expect to see them sprouting hate against you, just as you have done so against all the other infidels.

The best way to deal with them is to take up the role of an abused housewife: A little sobbing at the press conference in front of the media: Proclaim to the whole world that despite their vile tongues, you are willing to forgive them.

Once you have the sympathy vote, you can be sure that membership in your flock will rise, and once the opposition’s stock falls, lampoon them in front of the press. Exalt your God, & inform the press that the fates of your opponents have been preordained by God, as punishment for their blasphemy.

Praise Gawd.

ii. Jealous members of the public:

The success of your congregation will incite jealousy amongst members of the public. This will cause you to lose a few popularity votes along the way.

These members of the public may try to dissuade people from joining your congregation, and may from time to time, publish their ill feelings on newspapers.

The best way to deal with them is to sue one of these infidels for libel. That will shut the rest of them up. When suing, always choose the weakest prey. Better yet, threaten the infidel to publish an apology, or face a lawsuit. An out-of-court settlement will inflict a crushing blow to their egos as well as their pockets

iii. Bad Press: Not much you can do about, really. You can't offend the press. Bribe them to your side, or at the very least do not offend them.

Rather than worry about the press reporters, you ought to harness the advertising power of paparazzi. Always remember the Golden Rule of Weird Publicity: Bad press is always better than no press.

iv. Inciting hatred: Ensure that you insert a few pet hatreds along the way. The essence of religion is the "We are right, you are wrong, and you are going to hell" mentality. Eligible groups of choice will be gays, atheists, infidels and pagans.


Follow the steps as prescribed, and you are well on your way to yet another established faith. If your religion outlives you, you will leave behind a legacy for posterity, plus amassing a huge, personal fortune that will probably allow your future generations to lead a swanking, opulent lifestyle that would have made Saddam Hussein blush, if he was still alive.

Take note, though, the likes of infidels and atheists will probably take pisspots at your holy book, or even your portrait, just for kicks. In fact, you should not be surprised to find your holy book being flushed down the toilet by one of these disgruntled infidels.

As the saying goes, one good turn deserves another.