Monday, 29 October 2007

Wholesale Ban of Condom Use By Vatican on Faithful Flock Leads To Rise of AIDS Virus in Latin America

It's a pathetic, frustrating & almost hapless situation: Every year, millions of people are infected with AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome), and millions more will die as a result of it. According to UNAIDS, 38.6 million people are currently living with the HIV virus, with an estimated 25 million killed since the virus was discovered in 1981.

The figures are staggering, and the sheer numbers of lives lost to such a devastating disease should probably jolt our senses and make our hairs stand on end. If anything else, all efforts should not be spared to halt this viral scourge..... unless, of course, religious "sentiments" are weighed in and factored with nary a thought for those afflicted with the disease.

The Vatican's Stand: No Condoms Please, We Prefer Altar Boys

Inevitably, when sexual issues crop up, the Vatican surely has a say in such matters. As the de facto moral police (oddly, they seem to have more than a fair share of sexual anomalies amongst their ranks, some of whom have weird fetishes with altar boys) for two thousand years, the Vatican loves to impose sexual boundaries & proprieties upon its members: Women can't be priests, homosexual sex is a sin against God (Even if Jesus is depicted gay in almost every god-damned church on this planet), and condoms during sex.

For some unfathomable reason, the Catholic Church views sex as a one-way street: You can only engage in sexual acts as a means of pro-creation. Leisurely masturbation is forbidden (and sex with altar boys not???). Hence, the natural progression to this weird ban on condoms, which, rather conveniently, prevents insemination and the spread of........yes, you got it, AIDS, plus a whole host of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

While such a ban has no bearing as far as the right to using condoms is concerned, the Catholic Church's self-enforced ban on its roughly 1 billion members means that a fair portion of the more pious, fundamentalist flock are going to take the words of those perverted Vatican priests seriously, and in tandem with the Church's continuous smear campaigns against the safety of condom use (check out my previous post, here), countries with Catholic-dominated populaces are suffering from a huge resurgence of the AIDS epidemic.

Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam: U.N.

Tue Oct 23, 2:31 AM ET

The rapid spread in Latin America of the virus that causes AIDS is made worse by the Roman Catholic Church's stand against using condoms, a U.N. official said on Monday.

Some 1.7 million people across Latin America are infected with the HIV virus or full-blown AIDS, and the epidemic is spreading swiftly with up to 410,000 new cases in 2006, up from as many as 320,000 new cases in 2004, according the UN AIDS program, UNAIDS.

"In Latin America the use of condoms has been demonized, but if they were used in every relation I guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region," said Alberto Stella, the UNAIDS Coordinator for Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

The Catholic Church, which holds sway in Latin America despite the rise in evangelical churches, opposes all forms of contraception and instead promotes abstinence as a way to avoid spreading AIDS.

"The fact young people start to be sexually active between 15 and 19 without sex education contributes to the spreading of the virus, as well as the fact that the evidence shows abstinence is not working," Stella told Reuters.

Latin America is home to nearly half the world's 1.1 billion Catholics, but the Church's position on premarital sex and contraception often clashes with modern values. Brazil, the region's largest Catholic nation, regularly distributes free condoms to try and bring down HIV infection rates.

My Suggestion To The Pope: Go Smoke Dope

Good Ole Popey..........

Why these demons of an old, archaic, utterly immoral institution can hypnotize the masses in America does stump me, even though I understand that much of it has to do with the Inquisitors. 21st century modernization and Bronze Age mythology doesn't seem to click together too well.

I have a suggestion for the Pope and his crazy legions of old, sneering priests: Instead of spreading lies and uttering bullshit, why don't they just lie on their couches like old folks do, and smoke some good, old fashioned dope?

The world sure is a better place without these meddling old buffoons around.

Friday, 26 October 2007

Saying Goodbye to Your Imaginary Friend

The Innocence of Childhood

As children, most of us would have experienced the unbridled joy of being unrestrained: We were allowed to be tactless in our actions, running amok in the living room and leaving trails of destruction in our wake, be it a bunched of messed up magazines, or even a broken utensil. Our parents forgave us for our thoughtlessness (although sometimes a spanking would be in due), simply because we were kids, infantile caricatures of adult human counterparts which most of us would become (some don't, like a friend of mine who died from a traffic accident when he was 11).

As children, not only were our actions uncoordinated, our imagination and incredulous flights of fancy were, in a paradoxical sort of way, a "normal" process of growing up: Through a process of trial and error, and guided by our ever-watchful parents, we sieved through the actions and thoughts that would ultimately aid us in our future endeavors, as well as those that are detrimental to us, which we would do well to avoid at almost all costs.

Growing up is, therefore, a tedious process, and sometimes kids tend to be a little more frivolous in their beliefs. Through scores of fairytale books and other fantasy tales passed down from word of mouth, children are constantly bombarded with a whole myriad of fairy tales and other make-belief friends.

If a child has been raised on a diet of Peter Pan and his amazing adventures, a malleable, child-like mind will be attuned to this fictional character, and while the indoctrination may not be intentional (after all, parents do not indoctrinate children with Peter Pan's gospel of truth), a child who has yet to discern between fact and fiction may, in time, believe in the tales of Peter Pan.

As a child grows older, he or she gradually sheds away the innocence and ignorance of childhood. Gradually, as the growing child begins to learn and sieve through the vast myriad of truths and reality around him or her, the realization that Peter Pan or some other mythical creature that the child has held so dear in his or her heart is but a mere fickle of imagination begins to dawn. Reality begins to sink in, and the child in transition begins to grapple with the realities of the real , savage world, where evil sometimes (or most of the time, depending on your philosophical point of view) triumph, and good people are vanquished. Starving children dropping like a myriad of flies somewhere in the deep expanse of the Saharan Dessert. Depressing events tend to jolt our senses, and as we ascend into adulthood, we realize that the "feel-good" factor of the fairy tale variety does not necessarily transcend into reality.

Holding On To Infantile Beliefs: Filling the Void Left By Father Santa

Some void.....Santa Shares a Light Moment With His......Ahem........Fan

Logically, as full-fledged adults, our ability to ascertain facts and distinguish them from myths and hearsays are supposedly more mature and developed than our infant counterparts. Some factors, however, create havoc with our sense of rationality and logic, leaving behind a confused and fuzzed logic that blinds us and confuses with what is truth and what really is a pack of lies.

As adults, there is always a lingering tendency for us to cling onto a piece of our childhood, a kind of reminisce that isn't exactly a bad thing, although a morbid obsession with the realms of the twilight zone cannot be a good reflection of a healthy, adult mind.

In a bid to hold onto this historical piece of ourselves, many adults have taken to faith to fulfill a void left behind by our departure from our wry imaginations. God, it seems, becomes the summation of this lost character we look up to in childhood: Peter Pan and his magical abilities, Father Santa and his awe-inspiring ability to deliver presents to every children on the planet. These are omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent qualities we have, at some stage of our infantile lives, attached to our imaginary friends, and for some, the attraction and comfort derived from this seemingly harmless virtue is too difficult to resist.

Christians, in particular, attribute this trait to a "born again" phenomenon: By being a born-again Christian, a person begins to surrender his or her thinking faculties with regards to the deity in question, and in tandem with his or her infantile roots, the born again Christian assumes the same beliefs and behavioral instincts of a infant.

Such a degeneration of the human intellect is a scary thought: Imagine, for example, if the doctor, for some unexplained, bizarre reason, insists on dishing out the bible and saying a litany of prayers, instead of using the trusty stethoscope and attempting to find out the nature of your ailment. Or the engineer who blesses the building instead of using the correct mechanical instruments to ascertain the structural integrity of a building.

If the world is dominated by swarms of infantile humans clinging snugly to such infantile behavior, the world will be a very bleak place to survive in.

Saying Goodbye

Saying Goodbye Is the Hardest Thing To Do............

Unfortunately, adults do not have the luxury to dwell and linger in such phantom-like beliefs. As discerning adults, we need to depend on our mental faculties to perform numerous tasks, as well as protect ourselves from all manner of harm. Believing wholeheartedly that God or some imaginary being will deliver you from the crutches of evil in any given situation is not only foolish, it becomes detrimental if one puts too much faith into the healing effects of the deity, when a simple jab from the good-natured doctor would have solved a world of problems.

In sum, as adults, it is time for us to say goodbye to the remnants of a long-ago childhood, and embrace a godless, free-spirited future with logic, rationality and passion as our steering wheel.

"With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns."

-Richard Dawkins

Wednesday, 24 October 2007

THE SCARE!!! Ooooo: Validation? Damn Fundies!

We've all heard of the "red scare" of the 50s. It seems now we have a "godless scare" going on now. What's to be frightened of?

The faithful will claim that this "atheist movement" is seeping into society in ways that undermine the moral authority of THE higher power. This has been going on for a very long time and I think it's got to end. Religious ideologues, since time immemorable, have claimed that not believing their brand of fiction would result in [insert punishment].

What's with the "punishment" thing anyway? Sounds quite sadistic to me. If not for those who believe it then those who believe their god will get satisfaction from it. After all, if you think about punishment, you should think about the law of the land. Constitutional law of sovereign nations. With TRUE justice comes rightful punishment. NOT a supposed wrong as ascribed by the faithful against their belief system. These faithful feel wronged by us atheists denying or questioning the faith. Hence we get the all too famous "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!" statements. Why, if constitutional law is not good enough, do bible-thumping "fire and brimstone" fanatics see fit to sentence us non-believers to eternal damnation? Wait though! Don't forget that they love us.

What a fucking crock o' shit!

It's a stupid ass way to say, "I don't agree with you." [fundie tries to think then...] "I don't agree with you."


"...I just don't agree because it says here...[insert scriptural vomit]"

When a Christian constantly resorts to scripture it's a very, very good bet that they can't fucking think for themselves. These are the fundies/extremists/radicals.

It's also a good bet that those who try to rationalize/pick-and-choose/mete out their "faith" have a problem with the scripture that they are reading from. They a have problem with it's entirety. These types are the religious moderates or what I like to describe as religious liberals. The literalists of scripture are better versed than their liberal counter-parts.
However, the liberal scripturalists have been influenced by secularism (we freethinkers). To THINK about it. To re-interpret. I think this is a good thing for the faithful to do. It seems paradoxical or antithetical to their "books". I have no take on that.

Back to being scared of atheism. For one: If ones faith is so true and just, why worry about it? Why be fearful of another "faith" when yours justifies all? What's with the stamping out?

Here's my take. It has absolutely nothing to do with a god.


It has to do with human nature. To do with the person you sit across the table from wanting to be validated. Nothing more. Absolutely nothing more. They want to be right and not wrong. They want you to accept that they are right and not wrong. You have a different opinion and don't agree with. They get pissed and storm off. It can be so easily encapsulated. No complications to ponder. No wrongs needing to be righted...

One problem. The whole "god" thing. That's a problem.

It's unfathomable. It's inarguable with someone of faith. Sad. It really is.

Personally I DON'T have "faith" in anything and I am GLAD of it. Why? Because I am not fixated on a narrow set of rules, on a narrow set set of text that is ONLY about 700 or so pages long. It's fucking ridiculous.

It pisses me off so bad I almost want to go Stalin on their asses. But I won't 'cause I'm better than that. I'm more understanding and I'm not in public office. Who knows what might happen then. I might have you stoning you children for disobeying you.

This was a complete rant. Forgive me.

Sex Education Gone To The Dogs: Fundies Distort The Real Truths About Human Sexuality

In Singapore, Junior Colleges are obliged to set aside 8-hr sessions a week to cater to sex education, and some of the more religious institutions have apparently outsourced this very important, but nonetheless disregarded segment of education to the wanton abuse of "holier-than-thou" religious groups, whose motives and lies leave many students quite befuddled.

One such religious group, the Family Life Society (with its roots etched deep in American fundieland, no doubt), has established itself here in this tiny island nation of Singapore, and has apparently been quite notorious enough to make its rounds in local newspapers.

Report from the Straits Times

(Article on Straits Times; click to enlarge)

Now, according to the report, Family Life Society teaches some rather dodgy beliefs here, including:

1. Contraception is wrong;

2. Abortion is wrong;

3. Stem cell research is wrong

Now, if any readers amongst you are sniffing a hint of religious foul play here, you will be asking this question: How the hell does stem cell research end up in a sex education class as a legitimate topic???

Ah, the wondrous minds of our theist brethren apparently knows no bounds. Any avenue, apparently, to spread their "love of God" messages becomes a sordid avenue for erecting a pulpit, government institution or otherwise.

To further accentuate the doctrines of this moronic group, perhaps it would be terrific (or horrific), to slip in a few scanned pages of the textbook published by this religious institution.



Dark brownish in colour, the cover page of the book begins to reveal its revolting contents with a rather suitable revolting design.

And there, emblazoned in a rather pale shade of gold, are the words "Celebrate Life-The Workshop". Celebrating life? Not a very apt title for a sex education course book, eh? Or perhaps the writer of this moronic book never had the intention to impart proper knowledge in the first place?


Flipping through, one cannot fail to ignore the blatant religious contents spewed forth by the religious author.

-Why Sex Outside Marriage is Always Wrong

- Same Sex Attraction And Homosexual Sex

Ah, the first signs of conservative, fundamentalist deluge becomes distinctly evident. Homophobia, too, takes center-stage.


Ah, so what do we have here? A giant-sized picture of a sperm! Yes, those worm-like monsters of procreation, capable of creating little, noisy babies! Well, let us proceed and study the "words of wisdom" of these very enigmatic sex education experts.

-"When one speaks about condoms stopping the HIV virus, few realize the size of the problem. The human sperm can only be seen under the microscope. Millions of them are ejaculated from one act of intercourse. Some may escape through flaws or minute microscopic pores in the latex condoms to cause pregnancy thus rendering the condom an ineffective method of contraception."

Well, well, here's a little research material from Planned Parenthood:

"Of 100 women whose partners use condoms, about 15 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use. Only two women will become pregnant with perfect use.More protection against pregnancy is possible if condoms are used with a spermicide foam, cream, jelly, suppository, or film."

"Minute, microscopic pores"? "Ineffective method of Contraception"? Well, I guess that means one or the other is lying!

Now let us continue with this ridiculous work of Gawd:

-"If condoms can fail to stop the sperm, would not the failure rate for preventing Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDS) be higher for the smaller HIV virus and other organisms?"

-"Note: The sperm measures about 3 microns on the head and the HIV virus is 0.1 microns or about one ten thousandth part of one millimeter."

Now, as true science would have, water molecules are even much smaller, at 0.2 nano-microns.... so the condoms are effectively as leaky as a water hose...... despite the minuscule size of the water molecule!

The "leaky rubber condom" syndrome, however, flies smack in the face of what survival doctrine expounds: Survival experts will tell you that condoms are the best rubber to waterproof essential items small enough to be fitted snugly into one because of its water proofing qualities.

So, I guess, this really is a no-brainer: Condoms are water-proof; barring tears and non-correct usage, a condom is the best means of contraception and STD prevention.

From here on, the plot thickens. Contraception becomes an evil act: "Contraception is the deliberate sterilization of the sexual that the act will never be fruitful or open to life."

What the author is trying to expound is, sex must invariably be tied with pregnancy and procreation. Such an archaic, backward rubbish taught in a 21st century classroom is tantamount to teaching 21th century Chinese women the wonderful virtues of feet-binding.

Abortion is also condemned as an act of murder, with several medical conditions associated with abortion thrown in for good measure.

4.Now here comes the epitome of crap:

The author claims that:

1. Pregnancy prevention by condoms:85%
2.STD prevention: 50-90%.

According to Planned Parenthood:

"In a 1987–91 study of couples in which one partner had HIV, all 123 couples who used condoms every time for four years prevented transmission of HIV. In 122 couples who did not use condoms every time, 12 partners became infected.1"

Oops! 100% efficiency!

"A similar 1993 study showed that using condoms every time prevented HIV transmission for all but two of 171 women who had male partners with HIV. However eight out of 10 women whose partners didn't use condoms every time became infected.2"

The Humble Condom: An Erotic Invention Of Ingenuity, & Yes, Safe Sex!

That is more than 98% efficiency. Not too bad for a humble, rubber sheath!


Allowing religious institutions such as Family Life Society into government institutions as external faculties to teach secular subjects may not be the best option, after all.

Sex education is an important aspect of secular education. With the prevalence of AIDS and other STDS, it is imperative that our youth be armed with the knowledge to protect themselves. Allowing religious bigots to roughshod the sex education program is a dangerous precedent, and I hope the Ministry of Education reviews its policies, lest we want to breed a generation of ignorant youths.

1Alberto Saracco, et al, "Man-To-Woman Transmission of HIV: Longitudinal Study of 343 Steady Partners of Infected Men," Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, Raven Press. Ltd., New York: 1993, 6, pp. 497-502.

2Isabelle De Vincenzi, "Heterosexual Transmission of HIV in European Cohort of Couples," European Centre for the Epidemiological Monitoring of AIDS, Paris, France: 1993. Reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 42(30), August 6, 1993.

Monday, 22 October 2007

Christian Bigotry On The Net: Tales From A Fundie Website

The wonders of technology can sometimes overwhelm me: Occasionally, I am bombarded with a myriad of websites, some of which are sent to me as urls by fellow friends, atheists and colleagues, and when I am in the mood for some good ole "dry" surfing, the stuff that I peruse sometimes astounds me for various reasons.

As far as fundie websites are concerned, what I am about to introduce to you will seriously lower your IQ be warned........

Society For the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of The Ten Commandments

As strange as the title of the website sounds, what really irks me is the implication of practicality in an utterly unenforceable treatise as archaic and ridiculous as a tyrannosaurus enjoying cucumbers in the Antarctic.

According to the site owner, Robert T. Lee: " It appears as if it is the mark of nobility, decorousness and civicness for a people, society or nation to make laws by which to govern themselves. But a proper assessment of such an undertaking reveals just the opposite: it is the mark of heathenism. Contrary to what is generally thought, no nation or people should be in the business of endeavoring to govern themselves."

According to Robert, no Constitution, other than the Ten Commandments, matches to the standards of human governance, and if anything else, he insinuates that only the Ten Commandments should be the basis of any civil rule in the US: "His righteous Laws are the only ones which have ever and will ever exist that can definitely work for the total good of every society. Any people who reject His most perfect and holy Laws, that is, the TEN COMMANDMENTS, do so to both their corporeal destruction and eternal damnation."

Pure fundism indeed. And to round off such scary, on-the-ball religious theocracy, he even has a nice fundy-sounding pledge to mimic the pledge of Allegiance!

I pledge allegiance to the one

and only true God - God the

Father, God the Son and

God the Holy Spirit - and to

His heavenly Kingdom - to

love the Lord God with all

my mind, soul and strength,

and to love my worthy

neighbor, regardless of who

he or she may be, as I

should rightly love myself. I

therefore pledge to:

Have no other god besides

the true God; I will not make

for myself an idol of any

likeness of anything in the

heavens, on the earth or in

hell; I will not take the

name of the Lord God in

vain; I will remember a day

out of each week to keep

it holy unto the Lord; I

will honor my father and

mother; I will not murder;

I will not commit adultery;

I will not steal; I will not

tell a lie against or for any

person in any manner; I

will not covet, but will be

content with my bare


If this moron has his way, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and just about anyone who practices a religion other than Christianity will not be able to live under the umbrella of LEE'S CONSTITUTION!

Of course, his vehemence for the ungodly extends far beyond the realms of government. In a bid to reach out to the infidel, he resorts to his rather infantile, brutish banter of atheist bashing that any intelligent reader will not help but notice that this is not the work of a sane, intelligent being (A Martian would probably clobber him to death with a club.....)

Excerpts from his anti-Atheist Dialogues (If I have such appalling writing skills, I would seriously impale myself on the cross............) Original contents here, complete with errors, warts and all (Link here).



>>>>>GREETINGS CLASS>>>>Today we shall spend time in ward "man is manmade." You will correctly guess by the name of this ward that there is something seriously spiritually awry with the patients in it. You will note that all of the patients appear to be educated, but they have the fatal disease of atheism. They were raised with that awful disease.

Now before we enter this ward, make sure you wear you rubber gloves, aprons, masks and glasses. Now notice the pitiful condition of the eyes of every one of the patients. Notice the awful stench of the green and yellow pus running from their eyes. The awful disease of atheism has done that to them. Do you see the awful condition of that patient over there? His name is PapaSam. Look at that patient besides him, his name is Peter. Oh Look there! Her name is Joette.

Now what I want each of you to do for the rest of the period is adopt a patient, and I want you to work one-on-one with them to observe their awful conditions.

Student #10, why are you crying? "I don't understand TEACHER. What terrible effects atheism has had on the patient I adopted! Should a blind man ask for evidence of the existence of that which he cannot see. What if that which he cannot see cannot be monitored by any faculty except sight and proof cannot be given to him otherwise? Should he conclude that those things do not exist simply because he cannot himself see them? When those things are described to him by people who can see, should he regard their descriptions as fairy tales? Atheism has totally deceived him. Doesn't he understand that a blind man must accept a lot of things by faith simply because he cannot see them and he may not be able to monitor them otherwise?"

Student #10, he will never understand that unless he is cured of atheism. What you have described is one of the awful effects of the disease of atheism. You will not be able to effect a cure yourself. Not even education can effect a cure. Education only compounds the problem as you can see. Only God, the One atheism causes them to reject can effect a cure if He is pleased to do so.


Ah, the soulless eyes, the stench of the diseased atheist emanating from his eyes..... such a depiction for the godless creed.

Atrocious English aside, the "Man is Manmade" ward sounds like an awful oxymoron: How does man maketh a Man? Oh yes, the wonders of vitro-fertilization! Shouldn't the ward be a celebration of the prowess of Science, than be a isolation ward for those "sicko atheists"???

In sum, Lee offers nothing more than an elixir for the "patient". If this was a biology class, I wonder if the "Teacher" would have allowed for an autopsy of the Atheist corpse. He might just just discover the intricate wirings of the atheist brain - a more evolved version of the human brain than those mash-mellows of the inferior fundie types.

The Atheist Killer????


Hi everyone. I am 7 years of age. I want to let you knoe what and atheist ears. And atheist iis a person who uses his brain the wrung way.. Atheist don't know trutht. no one can no truth if theu rejek it. atheists are fools. They say it is no GOD. i afraid of atheists. if my parents wood have been atheists, they probably wood have killed me when eye i was in my mama woomb. Atheist kill sic olld people. atheists are nasty. atheist put a lot bad thing on the computer. atheists are dangerous. ppeople

Oh sure, mate. We atheists clobber and stone innocent children to death, cast demons into pigs, kill people who work on Sabbaths, disembowel disobedient children........

Proving The Negative?

TEACHER:>>>>GREETINGS CLASS>>>>>Today we will enter a boring facet of our study of the diabolical disease of atheism. What I want each of you to do today is to go to atheists you know and specifically challenge them to show any kind of proof that the Almighty God DOES NOT exist. One of the things atheists do is try to challenge true Christians to prove the existence of God. So, your mission is to challenge them to prove the opposite. I want some of you to enter ward "man is man made" and challenge Peter, PapaSam, Marlene, Joette and etc. Then, if they should answer, I want you to pay close attention to their answers. You will note that they (as well as all others) will be unable to intelligently, specifically and truthfully answer your challenge.>>>>>A challenge to the atheist: PROVE THE NON EXISTENCE OF GOD BY WHATEVER MEANS YOU THINK YOU CAN!>>>>>CLASS DISMISSED.

As far as philosophy has expounded (and science has interpreted): You can't prove something that is non-existent. Right and wrong are polarized values that do not apply on things that do not exist.

Perhaps Mr Lee can share with us about proving that Cosmic Mc Muffins, Flying Spaghetti Monsters and the Invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist. If he fails in his endeavor, I may simply draw the conclusion that they do exist in our heavenly realms! A splendid idea it would be, except that no man with his intellectual and rational faculties intact would ever sprout such utter nonsense.

Saturday, 20 October 2007

Religious-based education on trial in California

Now what kind of mess is this? Thanks to W's pro-Christian/No Private School Left-Behind/desecularization agenda. We have seen mega-churches crop up across the country building more of their own Christian schools than they have in the past.

As no surprise here comes the whining and complaining of persecution. Wah! The University of California, like all public universities, is a secular institution. I am sure UC is not discriminating or persecuting Christian applicants that come from Christian schooled education because they are Christian. I would wager my left nut that UC simply looks at these applications and find inadequate criteria met for admission to UC.

I wonder why. Maybe 'cause a Christian education is...well, inadequate and lacking.

That's a no-brainer as is illustrated in these first three snippets.

Sarah Potter-Smith, a sophomore at Calvary Chapel Christian School, can’t understand why anyone would think that learning any subject from a Christian perspective is inferior to a secular education.

Let's see. Damn! I can't find any statistics or reports except this: North Jersey Media Group providing local news, sports & classifieds for Northern New Jersey!

“We learn just as much as the public schools around here do and, actually, we learn more. For example, we have to learn about evolution on top of creationism, too,” said the 15-year-old.

No. According to the above study; on average public and private educations differ insignificantly.
Here's the rub though, Creationism is not a recognized or validated science...period and never will be because it's a theological philosophy not a biological science. Armed with the Creation Sword Christian educated students attempting to enter in public university will find a hard time discussing "real" religious theology, comparative that is (though, in my opinion, [theology] is all bullshit anyway). I don't think most fundamental Christians could handle discussion of other Creation myths without having a hissy fit.

Calvary English teacher Shannon Jonker, 26, said the Christian perspective helps students identify the many religious and biblical themes in literature. “We’re reading Frankenstein right now, and there are allusions to the creation story,” said Jonker, a 2002 graduate of University of California, Riverside.

Why does this look like the seed for a BEAST post? Frankenstein!!! That is just brilliant! Amazing!
Perhaps there are allusions, I'll not dispute it. But I'd like to know how they are interpreting it. God as Dr. Frankenstein? Adam as the "monster"? Damn, that's pure academic genius.

The Christian perspective is why people send their children to a Christian school, said Robert Tyler, head of Advocates for Faith and Freedom and Calvary’s lawyer in a controversial case against the University of California system.

I thought conservatives, I could probably lump religious conservatives here, were against frivolous lawsuits? association of Christian schools...charges that the admissions policy at the university unconstitutionally discriminates against them because they teach from a religious perspective.

I disagree and would add that these schools provide a piss-poor education. It's not discrimination. It's a simple case of crunching the numbers to see who is up to snuff on standardized testing.

“This is just another example of what’s happening on a much larger scale,” said Tyler, who maintains that the university is attempting to secularize private Christian education.

I have a solution. If they are bitching about a secular education, why the fuck do they even want to get into a secular university? It's called higher education for a reason; pack their bags to Oral Roberts, Liberty, Regent or Patrick Henry College. Where's John Stossel damnit, only if just to say "Give me a break".

Christopher Patti, counsel for UC. “There is no prohibition on religious content in UC a-g courses,” he said. “If the course adequately teaches the subject matter and adequately teaches the skills that students need in that subject, then the fact that it may also make reference to other theories doesn’t disqualify it, even religious theories,”

He was referring to the charge that the university rejected core courses using textbooks by leading Christian publishers Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Book because of religious content. These included biology texts that presented evolution but also the biblical account of creation and intelligent design as alternative theories.
UC said it rejected such texts “not because they have religious content, but because they fail to meet the university’s standards for effectively teaching the required subject matter.” UC, which also has disapproved courses from secular and other religious schools, said the books might have been approved as supplementary instead of primary texts.

DUH! Wow! I had an epiphany. Why Christian education is a farce. You can cheat by reading the bible!

Patti said, “The hypothetical that every core course would be disqualified is so far-fetched because Calvary already has a very large number of approved courses, including courses in every one of the a-g requirements.”

Just not the Creation and Christian doctrinal type of courses I'm sure.

Moreover, he said, if a school does not have approval for all or any of the 15 a-g courses, there are other ways for students to satisfy the requirement. These include scoring in the top two-thirds on the relevant SAT II tests in missing courses or by achieving a total score of 3450 on the three-part SAT Reasoning Test and two SAT II subject tests. However, since the majority of applicants achieve eligibility through approved courses in high school, the Christian schools consider these alternatives unfairly burdensome for their students.

Unfairly burdensome for their student? Thank you, thank you. This is exactly what the hell I was getting at with this post. Christian educated students are not up to snuff on these standardized tests. Does anybody have an explanation? How about a piss-poor education?

Here's how:

Examples of courses at Christian schools rejected by the University of California:

Course: Special Providence: Christianity and the American Republic

Text: American Government for Christian Schools (Bob Jones University Press)

Reason rejected: Content was not consistent with the “empirical historical knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community.”

Course: Christianity and Morality in American Literature

Text: American Literature: Classics for Christians Vol. 5 (A Beka Book)

Reason Rejected: Used only an anthology instead of complete works; selected works inconsistent with university “expectations regarding critical thinking and broad exposure to writers’ key works.”

Course: Biology

Text: Biology for Christian Schools 2nd Edition (Bob Jones University Press)

Reason rejected: Text “is not consistent with the knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community” and operates from the premise that “science is invalid to the extent it conflicts with Christian belief.”

Wednesday, 17 October 2007

The Shroud Of Turin: Playing A Joke On Pious Fools of Jebus

The Shroud of Turin: A Real Imprint of Jebus, Or a Fabrication from the Middle Ages?

As a grandiose, elaborate scam designed to beguile the masses, Religion has to rely on sacred relics to justify its superfluous existence, and this fact alone has obviously never eluded to crafty, wicked popes and their evil cohorts of bishops, who systematically roll out dubious sacred relics (e.g St Paul's stinky bones) throughout its 2000-yr existence.

One of the most popular relics, however, comes in the form of the Turin Shroud, an alleged linen cloth used to warp the crucified corpse of the Messiah, Jebus:

"He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen."

-John 20:5-7 (New International Version)

Discrepancies Found In The Turin Shroud

For centuries, the Vatican has touted its own version of the Shroud as the true, authentic piece.

The figure of a 6 feet, 8 inch man (from front) imprinted on the shroud was taught to be the deathly image of a dead Jebus shortly before his purported resurrection. Perhaps the Vatican had a mix-up between Goliath the Giant and Jebus the Man-lover?

Because of the exaggerated size of the imprinted figure and other discrepancies that have cast doubt over its origins, many skeptics had lampooned the Shroud as a work of forgery:

1. The figure on the shroud was of a massive frame: 6'8" at front, 6'10" at the back.

2. The head, in relation to the body, is too small. What is more, the head was displaced upwards.

3. The face is too thin, the forehead and sides of the face seems foreshortened, and ears cannot be seen.

4. Right arm/hand too long (double exposure of fingers, perhaps caused by a form of ancient photography)

5. There is a light circle on the nose.

6. The back of the head wider than the front of head

7. The image area is oxidized and dehydrated.

8. Hair hangs vertically, too straight for a distressed man who has just been removed from his crucifix!

9. The expression on the figure's face is too serene to belong to a tortured prisoner.

The Turin Shroud: Ancient Photography At Work???

Secondo Pia

In 1898, Secondo Pia, an amateur Italian photographer, took the first photograph of the shroud and, lo and behold: An image of a negative was staring back at him in his darkroom!

Given the dearth of modern photography in the Middle Ages, it is nearly inconceivable that someone talented enough to create such a advanced form of pure technical and scientific brilliance could have existed, until the arrival of Leonardo da Vinci, the master virtuoso of the Arts.

To most people who have come to understand Leonardo da Vinci, he personfies all that is artistic, including his most famous work, the Mona Lisa.

Born in 1452 as a illegitimate son, Leonardo was a man who wore many hats: He was a scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, musician, and writer.

A man well ahead of his time, he had, amongst his vast collections of drawings, the first design of a helicopter, a tank and even conceptualized the usage of solar power!

Leonardo: Living on the Edge

Leonardo lived in the time of the Inquisition, and given his infidelical lifestyle, it must have been his genius that ultimately saved him ass from being persecuted by the church: Leonardo was a gay and a vegetarian, any of which was a charge that could have earned him a place in the torture chambers of Jebus.

Apparently, the Catholic Church had a use for him, and who wouldn't, considering his vast arrays of talent?

Leonardo's Wealthy connections

Giuliano de Medici

In addition to Leonardo's talents, Leonardo was in the company of rich, powerful men: Most importantly, he served a host of wealthy Renaissance patrons, including Giuliano de Medici, son-in-law of the Duke of Savoy.

Given that the Medici family (Also founder of the World's first bank), had close ties with the powerful Catholic Church, Leonardo's ties with Giuliano virtually guaranteed him wealth and immunity against possible Inquisitors who do not take kindly to his "wayward" practices.

In 1492, at the request of Pope Innocent VIII, the House of Savoy was tasked with creating a shroud, probably to appease pious members of the Catholic Church. With Leonardo under the employ of the House of Savoy, Leonardo was tasked with creating a shroud, using what scientists today describe as the "earliest form of photography".

Using lenses, a camera obscura, chromium salts and his very own image (Blasphemy Alert!!!), Leonardo's talents saw to it that through sheer subterfuge, generations of ignorant, pious sheep would firmly believe in the entrenched fairy tales of a gory piece of cloth which has somehow soaked up the blood essence of their Messiah, hence fulfilling a macabre piece of blood sacrifice to atone a blood debt.

And to think that generations of pilgrims bothered to make a trip to fawn upon the image of Leonardo da Vinci! That, my friends, is the ultimate form of blasphemy!

So much for stupidity, ignorance and a blood-soaked cloth. Bloody Mary, anyone???

"Many are those who trade in tricks & simulated miracles, duping the foolish multitude; and if nobody unmasked their subterfuges, they would impose them on everyone."
– Leonardo da Vinci (Manuscript F, Institut de France, 5v)

Sunday, 14 October 2007

The Minnesota Sharia Scare!!! by Larro

I was prompted to write this post on account of a comment made on a post at Atheist Haven.

Them damn pesky Muslims. Don't they know a lot of Americans (hence a lot of Christians too) get drunk every once in a while? And that it's not illegal to transport liquor in a cab?

Well. This, among other things, is what the "scare" is about.

Shariah in Minnesota?
Radical Muslim activists go fishing in troubled waters.
by Katherine Kersten

Pesky conservative fear-mongering journalists! Radical Muslim activists? The sub-title alone tips me off that this writer is definitely conservative. Alrighty then, her story opens with a bunch of cabbies unwilling to transport clientèle because they're carrying alcohol. Don't get me wrong I think it's kooky and they are missing out on a fare by turning these people away. But the tack this woman takes suggests that she is blowing this thing way out of proportion. After all, in her own words...

"In September 2006, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) proposed a two color top-light pilot project to indicate which drivers would accept passengers with alcohol. The proposal, later dropped, would apparently have marked the first time that a government agency in the U.S. officially recognized Shariah law, and distinguished individuals who follow it from those who don't."

Damn! It was just a proposal that got shot down. Thankfully it did. I say that not because I fear "Muslims are taking over this country", but that the secular system worked, even Ms. Kersten expressed it so nicely.

Let's get back to her fear-mongering tactics.

Here in Minneapolis, one of the nation's most livable cities, hard-line Muslim activists are injecting an element that is anything but nice.

No. It was the Metropolitan Airport Commission, not "hard-line Muslim activists" that "proposed a two color top-light pilot project to indicate which drivers would accept passengers with alcohol."
Does anybody see the propaganda here? I suppose she may be referring to the cabbies as "hard-line", huh? Wow, what a stretch that is. Besides, the proposal was dropped.

Another complaint by Ms. Kersten concerns the "flying imams" and subsequent issue regarding "Twin Cities imams demand[ing] a separate Muslim prayer room at the airport."

And I bet they didn't get it.

Yet another complaint is that
"some Muslim cashiers at Twin Cities Target stores have begun refusing to scan pork products, like bacon and pepperoni pizza, and insisting that other cashiers or the customers themselves do it."

I myself have no complaint about this. You see I am a vegan. If this goes against their own personal beliefs why make them (in the workplace) go against what they feel is wrong?

This (like the cab drivers) is like people bitching about having to pre-pay at the gas pump! I can't count how many times I've stopped to fuel up (I do a lot of driving) and people are seriously pissed off that they have to go in and pre-pay for their gas. This Target incident is completely irrelevant to law. That's a personal choice these Muslims have made and has no bearing on church/state separation. It's fucking Target! Whoopie shit! Damn Muslim "activist" Target cashiers! The nerve of invoking their first amendment rights! Who do they think they are? Real Americans?

Epilogue: Here we see a prime example of people getting mixed up about civil liberties. As far as I can tell, the aforementioned "incidents" solely encompass free speech the exercise thereof. If somebody thinks otherwise then they believe that the first amendment is garbage.

More from dubious source: OpinionJournal - Cross Country

Katherine Kersten - Google Search
"Flying Imams" - Google Search
"Flying Imams" - Google News
sharia Minnesota - Google News
Minnesota Muslim - Google News
Muslim cashiers - Google News

Katherine Kersten - Atheist Blogroll Search
"Flying Imams" - Atheist Blogroll Search
sharia Minnesota - Atheist Blogroll Search
Minnesota Muslim - Atheist Blogroll Search
Muslim cashiers - Atheist Blogroll Search

The Trouble With Born-Again Christians

As an ex-Christian and a bona fide atheist, I am sometimes flummoxed by the slew of ridiculous Christian jargon that is pandered around by fundamentalists and religious liberals alike.

Some Christian jargons have their origins from the Bible: "It is easier for the camel to enter the eye of the needle than the rich can enter the gates of heaven" is sprouted more commonly enough to let us infidels understand the fundamental importance of donating our wealth to the Church (Although why the pastors and reverends and all the fat bigwigs aren't doing otherwise is beyond me. Apparently, God's will is unfathomable to us mere mortals!), and of course to remind the mindless flock not to cease the almost weekly cash flows into the church coffers every other God-damned Sunday.

Fair enough. The Church needs the cash, and so does the opulent lifestyles of the rich and wealthy Benny Hinn wannabes.......... but why the need to be "born-again"???

The Stupidity of Being Born-Again

There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

John 3:1-8

Christian denominations across the board often address their newly-anointed (or saved) sheep as "born-again" Christians, for reasons that I can only attribute to as a distinctive loss of IQ ( and perhaps EQ). While this may be considered an oddity, and even repulsive to the more atheistic masses, the idea of being "born-again" sounds rather disturbing, as it is tantamount to an acute form of submission and considerable brainwashing.

You don't need to be a Richard Dawkins or a family doctor to realize that babies, or the young of any imaginable creature on this planet, are substantially of lower intellect and even weaker strength than their adult counterparts, although some animals, like the gazelle, are required to gallop about within hours after their birth.

When a human baby first descends upon this tiny little planet through his mother's womb, the baby is absolutely hapless, its limbs and bodily functions hardly developed enough to suffer the rigors of everyday life without the aid of its parents. Besides its obvious vulnerability, the baby has to be raised through various stages of childhood, and a sound education will help imbue the necessary information and skills for him or her to survive in the real world.

Now, imagine a full-fledged adult succumbing to this "born-again" syndrome literally, and the scale of time suddenly reverses backwards. Instead of growing older and gaining more knowledge along the way, the newly-afflicted Christian goes reverse mode and becomes a fragile little baby! Now, who in the right mind wants to lose his or her mental and intellectual faculties to the point when he or she has just emerged out of the mother's womb?

The idea that stupidity becomes a prerequisite in a religion meant for sending believers to heaven and unbelievers to hells sounds really dreary indeed, considering that a Christian's version of heaven is no more than a bunch of fluffy clouds and a couple of angels strumming their harps and singing monotonous hymns to a Godfather for eternity. Not to mention the idea of going through the whole damn cycle of being infantile and going through basic arithmetic in elementary school. Now that sucks big-time.

The Real Motives Behind "Born-Again" Advocates

Why the unknown author of the book of John mentioned about being "born-again" is painfully clear: Like the Creationist myth of Genesis, knowledge and intellect are considered to be the nemesis of faith: If you think critically, you will almost certainly not attain the necessary requisites of faith-induced euphoria to become indoctrinated with the hocus pocus of Christian dogma.

The next time someone suggests the "reborn" bullshit, try pointing him or her to the direction of the psychiatric ward. Only a retard will encourage others to lose their intellect, and such morons should be sent for psychiatric revaluation at the soonest possible opportunity.

After all, you were born right the first time.

Saturday, 13 October 2007


When the Godfather Speaks, Even The Son Shuts His Trap

(A long, long time ago, in the upper echelons of heaven, there were three feudal Lords of Creation: The chief honcho, a.k.a "The Father", was a cruel despot who had ruled over his earthly minions since time memorial, and along with his henchmen, "The Son", and the spooky "Holey Ghost", the three hucksters were the true Al-Capones of Mother Earth.

Contrary to popular folklore, the Lord Almighty was not prone to a single shred of kindness, as this scenario will prove.)

Scene: High in the lofty clouds of heaven, The Three Feudal Lords are having a special dinner in the Heavenly Realms: On this special occasion, they have invited their archrival, Lucie, for a reunion of sorts: Lucie was once part of the Father's mobster rule, a leading henchman of the Father's most sinister taskforce of dagger-wielding assassins, and assigned with dishing out every imagination plague and disaster upon the hapless masses.

Father (Approaches Lucie, big smile, Al-Capone style, shakes hand of Lucie): Jolly good fellow, Lucie! Haven't seen you for a long while! Look how handsome our prodigal son is, tall, dark, and handsome, and that spiked tale........oh yes, my dear Lucie, you are indeed in the pink of health!

Son (Mockingly): Yes, Father.........I guess he hasn't suffered too much.....You looked dark, Lucie. Damn that Sun.....Father, perhaps we should just turn the lights a little dimmer?

Lucie (Flaring horns, tails wagging like an agitated dog): Imbecilical Creatures. What do you want from me?

Father: Relax, Lucieboy! Come, join us for dinner (Turns to Son). For Jebus' sake where the fuck is the Holy Ghost???

Son (Face turning sheepish): Erm, Dad, right behind you...........

Father (Irritated, screams at Holy Ghost): For the umpteenth time, do not sneak up on me like a evil phantom behind my back!!!

Holy Ghost: But I am an apparition, Father.............

Father (interrupts): Shut up, you miserable bastard! I am the supreme Lord of Creation......I......

Lucie (Getting Impatient): Yo, yo, yo, cut down on your excessive family quarrels. I am in no mood for your endless heavenly bickering.

Father (fuming): I will deal with you later. Now, let us start our first discourse (Calls to St Michael) Yo Mikey, bring out the first course.

(St Mikey Comes In, with a host of rather disgruntled angels. Like modern day waiters, they are immaculately dressed in white, dishing in exquisitely-prepared cuisines for their holy hosts)

Father (Rubs hands, with gee): Ah, let's see........what are you serving today?

St Michael (Drones): Today's first course, courtesy of our pious worshipers: Human leg chops from the last human sacrifice, along with (points towards a crowd of ladies in front) 32 virgins, again courtesy of your delightfully faithful masses.

Father (Ogles at the virgins): Ah, pretty candy for the the virgins for the last segment of today's program. Come, let us feast!

(St Michael and his motley crew serves up the first macabre dishes: Jebus was insatiable, eating mouthful after mouthful of human flesh. The Holy Spirit, too feasted with gusto; while the Father was filling himself up with gallons of a newly-distilled brand of alcohol, The Bloody Mary.)

Father (puzzled): Lucie! Why aren't you tucking in?

Lucie (Disgusted): No thanks, Father Christmas, I am a vegetarian.... I do not find human leg chop appetizing (Turns to St Michael)....Hey Mikey, you have something more palatable to my tastes? Lettuce or broiled soup will do just fine.

Father (Shakes head): What's up with this pusillanimous attitude, Lucie? You, the Prince of Darkness, the Son of Dawn, my pride of joy, my.......

Lucie: Yes, Father, a damn jewel in your eye. This I never forget.

Father (Laughs heartily): Yes, indeed, the darling of my glorious Creation. But you, Lucie, my immaculate creation, chose to turn against my very will....

Lucie (interrupts): Your very barbaric, bloodthirsty will, hell-bent on deriving sadist pleasure from your pathetically feeble masses.

Son: (Slams table, hurls a thigh bone at Lucie, who dodges it with remarkable ease): How dare you hurl such blasphemous insults at our most Holy Father! You, our once-trusted minion, how dare you harbor such ill-sentiments towards your benefactor and Creator! Apologize, or I shall zap you with a thunderbolt!

Father (To Son): Hold your thunderbolts, for Jebus' sake! No one zaps anybody. Lucie, kindly enlighten me and my favorite henchmen here........what have I done to deserve your wrath?

Lucie (Raises Eyebrow): Playing coy with me, Father? Your outrageously indecent meal (Points to the half-finished plate of human flesh), the countless tragedies, tremors, plagues and all manner of disasters wrought forth by your wantonly thoughtless acts, your staunch refusal to grant Adam and Eve with even an ounce of intelligence up until I had willed and egged your rather dull-witted Creation to consume the fruits of that tree of knowledge......the sheer callousness and utterly deplorable deeds surpasses every tyranny and despotism that has been spawned by every vile creature ever since.

Father (laughs with delight): I am the Creator. What I do is none of your damn business. As a matter of fact, you are my Creation. I can wring and break your scrawny neck with nary a flicker of my fingers.

Lucie (Laughs Sardonically): The day I decided to take my cohort of angels in the last mutiny, I have thrown in my lot with insubordination. Your threats matter little to me. Neither does your very "intelligent" institution you call "Hell".

Father: dear Lucie. Still as beautiful and angelic........but not much of an EQ to start with. Can't you see the reasons behind my supposedly cruel deeds?

Lucie: I have no interest in listening to your silly diatribes. Say what you must, and let me return with the masses. The Lord Of Evil does not wish to waste his time in an eternal orgy of sex, debauchery and wanton abandonment.

Father (Sighs): In that case, I shall be blunt. I am sending my Son to Earth.

Son (Suddenly stops eating, jaws open): Father! No Bullshit! I ain't going to that hell hole.

Father (Shakes head): Oh yes, Son, you insolent Brat. An eternity in the heavenly realms has made you weak. I intend to toughen up your jelly-O soul and turn you into the True Lord Of the Cosmos.

Son (Cries): No fucking way! (Combs hair) How can my luxurious, delightfully brushed hair suffer through the rigors of a tough, mundane existence on that insane planet of yours?

Father (Smiles slyly): Well Son, you will not rule on Earth. In fact, it is my intention that you live 32 years of your life on that dank planet. You will be born in a fucking stinking manger to a Joseph, a good-for-nothing carpenter, and of course I get to impregnate your mum along the way (a lecherous look in eyes)....... Along the way, you will preach your undecipherable nonsense, parables and what-nots, beguile the uneducated masses with your 13 gay disciples, and basically spend your youth in a carpenter shop with your useless father. You will be embuggered by your disciples too, but no worries, because prostitutes will fight over the right to wash your feet with their hair, as compensation for your bleeding anus. At the end of your ignominious adventure, you will be crucified by the Romans, thanks to a groups of disgruntled Pharisees.

Son (Cries, kneels before Father): can you bear to send your lovely Son through such rigors, such tortures, such..........

Father (Deadpanned): No worries, Son. You won't die from the ardor........well, at least your soul will be intact after the ordeal is long over.

Lucie (Interrupts): Excuse me, but what is my role in all this?

Father: Well, I am always enamored and enthralled by a good script. You will tempt my son to turn against me. Is that a difficult task?

Lucie: Not at all. Now if you will excuse me, I will like to return to my lair and dine on my organic crops grown from the fertilized manures of humans.

Father (Nods his head): Be gone, my apostate. I shall hold you to your promise.

Lucie: Much as I hate you, I sure like the way you are going to torture your Son.

(Lucie leaves. The Son begs his Father to reconsider, citing an eternity spent in decadence, opulence and cruelty. Father doesn't budge.

As the New Testament goes, Jesus went through the mill, gets tempted by Satan, and makes the ultimate sacrifice. So much for the will of Gawd...........)


Friday, 12 October 2007


Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.

Such beliefs include young Earth creationism, which takes Genesis literally, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings but rejects evolution. The term theistic evolution has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth.

Creationism in the West is usually based on creation according to Genesis, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth. Several states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgements. The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology.

When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research, its underlying scientific theories, or its methodology. For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community. The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.