Homeland Security – clearly an immigration issue.
Labour bill – GOP amendment to defund Obamacare.
Education and energy bill – GOP amendment to defund Obamacare.
Economic bill – GOP amendment to defund Obamacare.
Another education bill – GOP amendment to cut funding to any school that so much as mentions abortion to teenage girls.

These venal assholes will sacrifice even the appearance of doing their job, while putting god bothering, science denying morons like Inhofe in charge of the environment, in order to make another petulant, stubborn, childish fucking attempt to roll back any gain that helps anyone not named Koch, or fails to hew to their imbecilic, ignorant Conservative principles – principles that plainly amount to being willfully stupid and throwing tantrums when they don’t get to actually do the brainless goddamn things they promised Cletus and the rest of the Klan in Sisterfuck, Arkansas in order to get his snake handling ass off the porch and into a voting booth.



Not Real Islam?

“Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest.” – Émile Zola

Religion commonly produces sects – splinter groups with a slightly different theological interpretation of some bit of nonsense: the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, confession, communion; Reform and Orthodox Jews; various strains of Baptist – no one would ever suggest that these are not all religions. Despite the Protestant conviction that Catholics are doomed (and vice versa), the claim that one or the other of these gangs of theists is somehow not a religion is nothing that should be taken seriously.
Yet some Muslims (and Liberals) point to a group of other Muslims – all of them adamant about their faith and their motives – and say, “We refuse to take these people at their word. We find their actions abhorrent and so, therefore, they are not real Muslims.”
It seems the main qualifying feature of being a “real religion” is that it doesn’t provoke bad acts. This view demands a rather shocking degree of willful blindness with regard to the history of religion, the contemporary practices of those who proudly invoke the name of God, along with complete ignorance of the allegedly inerrant word of the one true God. I invite anyone who doubts this to simply open a newspaper and to spend some time actually reading the Bible or the Quran because it appears certain they have not done either.
ISIS stones people to death – an act specifically demanded for any number of offenses in the Christian Bible – and the choir responds with even greater certainty: “That’s not REAL religion!”
The stunningly hypocritical contradiction passes by them without so much as a nod or a wink: when people do exactly that which God specifically demands for reasons plainly enumerated in their inerrant, divinely revealed book, THAT’S not religion.

The members of ISIS are Muslims – you may take them at their word.
It is a fundamentally Islamic organization and Islam is either the proximate cause of the evil they do or an accelerant. They are not pretending, and have made very clear that anyone who doesn’t agree with their particular understanding of God deserves to die.

Similarly, gentle Jesus, meek and mild, is the proximate cause for people who shout epithets at women attempting to enter medical clinics, just as He was for those who burned innocent women at the stake after falsely accusing them of witchcraft.
Let’s not dodge the facts by refusing to admit that these monsters were Christians and largely motivated by righteous certainty in divine warrant. It is simply dishonest to assert otherwise.
On its face, it seems to me such an egregious evasion that it calls into question the motives of anyone who points to these people and casually asserts they are not REAL Christians, or that their foundational scripture does not fairly support and demand such things on a plain reading.
The Catholic church still takes very seriously the idea of demonic possession and the necessity for exorcism. That they have not burned anyone at the stake recently does not exonerate their dangerous and superstitious theological certainty.

As for ISIS not conforming to “Islamic orthodoxy” (the definition of which apparently cannot be left to Shi’ite and Sunnis to sort out), the actions of ISIS conform perfectly with the demands specifically made in the Quran regarding infidels, blasphemers, apostates, adulterers and homosexuals.
That the vast majority of people are rightly horrified by those actions renders neither the motives nor the terrorists themselves, “Not really Muslim,” no matter how sincere the desire to avoid offending all those reasonable Muslims who decry the murderous attacks in Paris, the burning alive of a caged man, or to comfort some misplaced Liberal need to elevate tolerance beyond reason.
The depth and breath of cognitive dissonance required to play this level of No True Scotsman is, in my view, a very serious obstacle. We cannot begin to address any serious problem with multiple causes, of which religion is plainly a very significant one, by defining that factor out of the equation because it suits some relexive desire not to offend someone’s make believe friend.

Hitchens was right. Religion poisons everything. Pretending it doesn’t – that in some small measure it’s a good thing – is whistling past the graveyard.

Joe Scarborough – Racist Ignoramus

Joe Scarborough:

“The cops have every reason to be pissed off this morning,” Scarborough said. He argued that the five players on the St. Louis Rams who raised their arms in solidarity with Ferguson on Sunday based their gesture on “lies” that contradicted findings of a grand jury investigation.

“And by the way, if I’ve offended anybody by saying what I’ve said, trust me, 95 percent of America think just like me,” he said. “Just because there are cowards who won’t say that on TV… that’s their problem, not mine,” said Scarborough.

Joe Scarborough has never been a smart man. His “Center right” cardigans button up over a pathetically weak mind operating from within a set of Dunning-Kruger level partisan presumptions. He’s a giant bag of dicks who somehow managed to get elected to congress and is now paid ridiculous amounts of money to daily ooze his condescension all over large blocks of time on our public airwaves.

Joe seems to know how offensive is the shit oozing from the inverted anus he calls a mouth. He attempts to inflate his credibility by admitting that his words are certain to offend and asserting that 95% of the population agrees with him. This is nothing more than self-stroking speculation. Even if it were true that the vast majority of Americans agree with his ignorant fantasies, it would only amount to argumentum ad populum. The truth would be that 95% of Americans are uneducated, racist know-nothings who are completely fucking wrong.
He then arrogantly labels anyone who doesn’t publicly admit that they agree with him a coward. This is cheap and shabby ad hominem. Think about what Scarborough is saying here: only cowards stand up for the weak against the power structure that has oppressed them for 300 years. Only cowards question the result of a blatantly rigged legal process that was inverted 180 degrees from its historical AND contemporary purpose.
Joe Scarborough – brave, smart and speaking for the silent massive majority who are just too…something…to say what only Joe has the sack to say – the singular voice willing to speak the POPULAR truth. The greasy little moron and his unwarranted pride in his own imagined genius fucking nauseates me.

The problem with all of this is that, in addition to being racist on its face, Joe doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about.

Firstly, a grand jury – to flog a soundly beaten and long dead horse – is supposed to examine the evidence for a singular purpose: to determine whether or not there ought to be a trial; whether there is ANY evidence that would require taking the matter before a trial judge.
They are impaneled by a prosecutor who is presumed to WANT an indictment and who will argue that the evidence supports that outcome. He will usually direct the jury’s attention to the evidence supporting an indictment and request that they return a charge appropriate to the facts.
This is NOT what happened in Ferguson. The grand jury in Ferguson did not investigate a goddamn thing. Grand juries have, in theory, the ability to perform investigatory functions but this one, in fact, did not.
It heard the evidence presented to it by the prosecutor – evidence which was collected during an investigation conducted by various entities. It examined that evidence ONLY in the light in which the prosecution presented it – no alternative arguments, no cross-examination, no alternative theories.

Secondly, as noted in my previous post, the conduct of the prosecutor in Ferguson, Missouri didn’t even distantly orbit anything remotely resembling a proper grand jury, much less meet the duty of his office or the laws of the United States. The only way it could have been more corrupt, the outcome more rigged, would be if the verdict had been rendered at gunpoint.
Incriminating evidence was cross-examined as though the prosecutors were employed by Darren Wilson – the target of the grand jury.
Exculpatory evidence – which grand juries are not entitled to hear and prosecutors are not obligated to present – was casually submitted with absolutely no critical analysis.
An assistant prosecutor misdirected the jury with regard to the applicable law.
The lead prosecutor didn’t even request that the jury return an indictment – he let those untrained citizens think their job was to decide if the shooting was justified!
This is nonfeasance, misfeasance AND malfeasance all wrapped up in, “Just doin’ my job.”

And yet, here’s the blathering white bread asshole Scarborough, backed up by his brainless sidekick (a pure talent hire who is only coincidentally the daughter of a former Secretary of State), and supposedly countered on the left by an even bigger yammering douche nozzle who is only too eager to jam his tongue up Scarborough’s ass to signal his complete agreement with a series of deep-cleaning reptilian licks.

“Michael Brown was a thug.”
That’s NOTHING but character assassination – an attempt to divert attention from the cheap three card monte scam he’s running on his “It’s OK to be racist if you just keep insisting you’re not” teevee program.

Joe Scarborough is an ignorant, lying, racist piece of shit. It may be the case that 95% of America agrees with him. That would explain much.

Corrupt Ferguson Grand Jury

What people need to wrap their heads around has nothing to do with whether or not the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson was justified.
The flagrant and intentional misuse of the grand jury system to no-bill the cop and ensure the matter would never be tried in open court; the manner in which it was done is a critically serious issue.

The PROSECUTOR cross-examined witnesses whose testimony weighed on the side of indictment. No such attention was given to exculpatory evidence…which a grand jury is not entitled to hear in the first place.
Exculpatory evidence was casually presented with no critical analysis whatsoever: Thank you for your honest and helpful testimony, Officer Wilson.  But perhaps the most qualified medical examiner on the planet got, “Are you a toxicologist?”
“Are you a pharmacologist?”
“Have you been certified as an expert in toxicology?”
“Have you been certified as an expert in pharmacology?”
And this was done in order to support the implication that Brown was out of his mind on WAX (a concentrated form marijuana) FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE.
Defence lawyers in the employ of Darren Wilson could not have presented that evidence to the grand jury in any more favourable light.

Whether or not Darren Wilson committed a crime when he killed Michael Brown will never be determined. The reason for that is because a gang of intentionally malfeasant prosecutors decided to rig the system so that question would never be asked or answered.
Robert McCulloch might as well have walked into that room like this:

Robert McCulloch

Stop Giving Cops Who Kill the Benefit of the Doubt

A 12-year-old child was shot to death by police officers in Cleveland. The child was alone in an empty park playing with a toy gun. The police claimed that the child was with a group of friends; that he ignored repeated commands to put up his hands; that he reached for what appeared to be a weapon. Only then, say the police, were they forced to use lethal force.
The officers did not know that there was a security camera across the street recording the entire incident. I leave to the viewer to assess the credibility of the officers.

Cleveland dot com copied the video and posted it in an article demanding answers from the police. My open rely to the editors of that publication follows:

“…the police have a lot of explaining to do.”

Given that the police have already lied about their actions, saying the child refused repeated orders to put up his hands – a claim made manifestly false by the video – how does one manage to express the expectation there could be any possible explanation, justification or excuse?
The stern way you appear to demand answers in the face of evidence that leaves no goddamn questions only underscores the degree to which police are given license to use force in any way they see fit against anyone that comes along. Even after LYING about the murder – and there is nothing else to call it – of a small child sitting alone in an empty park playing with a TOY, you still want them to tell you HOW IT IS that such a thing might have happened; what confluence of circumstance led to this awful (but, of course, unavoidable) outcome. They need to EXPLAIN.
Perhaps when they finish scuffing their feet, looking at their hands and stuttering about how no one understands the dangers they face every day while keeping us safe from children in empty parks, you’ll explain why it is that your paper’s tongue is jammed so deeply up the backdoor of a thin blue pair of child murderers.
One wonders at what point your newspaper would stop asking for explanations; stop giving murdering cops the opportunity to cobble together a “valid excuse” for why they shot a 12-year-old child who posed NO DANGER to ANYONE without so much as a single word.
‘He was big for his age. He looked like a demon. He had rage in his eyes. I thought he would charge me. He went for my gun. It’s difficult to be a cop, you know…you never know when you will be confronted by a 12-year-old sitting alone in a park and be forced to make a split-second life-or-death decision. YOU WEREN’T THERE!’

You ask a series of WHY questions as if there are possible answers; as if there’s some string of words that a cop might utter that would justify what appears on that tape: TWO SECONDS after those brave men arrived to serve and protect, a pubescent child was shot and killed. And they have ALREADY LIED ABOUT IT.
But even THAT – the knowledge that you are demanding answers from people who lie with the first goddamn words out of their mouth; who lie as a matter of standard operating procedure; who attempt to justify what cannot possibly be justified with complete fiction; LIES THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTED WERE IT NOT FOR THE CONTRADICTING VIDEO – does not stop you from demanding an explanation. “WHY? Tell us what reasoning you employed!”
I have a better question: Which member of that police force has the videotape of your editor-in-chief fucking a pig?

Resa Aslan is Rubber and You’re Glue

This entire article is nothing more than a slow, simmering pot of false equivalency. A dishonest attempt to smear those willing to accurately and honestly speak about the consequences of religious faith; who refuse to make excuses for evil by painting shades of grey all over the place.

The question is not whether Reza Aslan finds the things said about the belief systems for which he apologizes rude.  No one is obligated to respect the long history of faith claims about flying horses and talking snakes, much less the willingness of some to murder a cartoonist or an abortion doctor.

The question is whether or not the things they say are TRUE.
This is also a very good question to ask about the things said by Reza Aslan.

Not long ago, I gave an interview in which I said that my biggest problem with so-called New Atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is that they give atheism a bad name. Almost immediately, I was bombarded on social media by atheist fans of the two men who were incensed that I would pontificate about a community to which I did not belong.
That, in and of itself, wasn’t surprising. As a scholar of religions, I’m used to receiving comments like this from the communities I study.

As a scholar of religion?  I wonder how Aslan feels about it as a professor of creative writing.  It doesn’t matter – the replies were not “incensed” about Aslan’s pontification, nor about Aslan not being an atheist.  Those would be odd things about which to be incensed: he’s Reza Aslan – fish swim, birds fly, Reza pontificates.

In any event, they were incensed by the cheap tactics Aslan serially employs to cobble together condescending attacks against those who insistently point out the emperor’s distinct lack of clothes.

In truth, Marx’s views on religion and atheism were far more complex than these much-abused sound bites project. Nevertheless, Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.
Atheists often respond that atheism should not be held responsible for the actions of these authoritarian regimes, and they are absolutely right. It wasn’t atheism that motivated Stalin and Mao to demolish or expropriate houses of worship, to slaughter tens of thousands of priests, nuns and monks, and to prohibit the publication and dissemination of religious material. It was anti-theism that motivated them to do so. After all, if you truly believe that religion is “one of the world’s great evils” – as bad as smallpox and worse than rape; if you believe religion is a form of child abuse; that it is “violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children” – if you honestly believed this about religion, then what lengths would you not go through to rid society of it?

This is a nasty little bit of straw man – the implication that Marx held more complex and nuanced views about religion than do these inflexible and dogmatic “New Atheists” (who would, then, logically go to any lengths – “violently suppressing religious expression, persecuting faith communities…demolishing houses of worship” – to oppose religion).
But are Aslan’s cherry picked quotes TRUE?
Is religion a form of child abuse? Let’s not ask the Catholics about that.
Is religion allied to tribalism and bigotry? Let’s not ask…well, an awful fucking lot of people in a goddamn lot of places, actually.
Is religion invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry? …are you fucking serious?
Is religion contemptuous of women?…coercive toward children?
How rude to point it out.

In any event, I’ll stack the nuanced understanding of religion – its foundational scriptures and its history – demonstrated by Christopher Hitchens against that of Reza Aslan any day. Plenty of scholars far more qualified than Reza Aslan made the mistake of questioning the depth and breadth of Hitchens’ theological chops. I suspect Aslan only dares suggest such a thing secure in the comfort that the man is no longer able to deliver the public humiliation such implication deserves.

Secondly, where’s all this atheist oppression? Some examples would be nice.
We’ll come back to the distinct lack of secular beheadings later.

Aslan pretends to play fair.  Despite the casual lies that Stalin and Mao instituted anything distantly orbiting Marxist philosophy, and that the Soviet Union and China were examples of how Marx envisioned atheist states, he admits that Stalin and Mao were not motivated by atheism.
This is simply true, and Aslan may be given minor credit for not dragging out the shibboleth that atheism was responsible for the crimes of those tyrants.

But then Aslan pulls a sneaky, underhanded move – he substitutes ANTI-THEISM as the culpable motive:  Stalin and Mao were not motivated by atheism (which is true) but by the narrow sort of atheism espoused by Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris – the INTOLERANT atheism. The RUDE atheism. The EVANGELICAL atheism.

Let’s examine that assertion.

Aslan makes a distinction between atheists and anti-theists: the former reject god claims, the latter actively oppose god claims (which makes them rude and intolerant).  Fair enough. If you care that Reza Aslan thinks you’re rude, raise your hand.

He also correctly labels Christopher Hitchens as the most iconic contemporary example of “Anti-theism,” a title which Hitchens notably claimed for himself. Aslan then suggests that anti-theists, in their zeal to eliminate theism (how very like fundamentalist religious adherents!) would go to ANY lengths – violence if necessary – in order to achieve that end.

This is a bald-faced lie and Aslan damn well knows it. It goes well beyond false equivalency and slides greasily into slander.

(What? Not again!)

The words of Christopher Hitchens on numerous public and recorded occasions (as well as those of Harris, Dawkins, Dennet et al), make Aslan a liar.

That he could make such a claim in the face of absolutely contradictory evidence – evidence of which he is perfectly well aware and to which his attention has been directed on numerous occasions – only aggravates the crime.

Hitchens had no desire to eliminate religion and did not even think it possible. He merely insisted that those so inclined keep their Bible thumping, Quran waving hands off the public square, out of his business, and the business of everyone else who may not share their beliefs.

All of the “New Atheists” have clearly and repeatedly rejected forcing anyone to abandon their faith – and it must be noted that this is in rather stark contrast to the monstrous lengths to which theists have demonstrably gone, are at this very moment going, and will gladly go in the future to achieve the opposite.
Hitchens and Harris have called for violence – that whatever means necessary be employed to stop honour killings; the mutilation of children for attending school; the murder of homosexuals and other hideous crimes – crimes which Aslan has specifically admitted are the product of fundamentalist religious faith.
Objecting to hideous crimes and demanding they be stopped – by force if necessary – is not the structural or moral equivalent of committing those monstrous, divinely inspired crimes in the first place.
Accusing Hitchens of being willing to employ coercive measures to eliminate theism is a filthy lie, as is extending that wish to the larger belief system.
The insult is compounded by having been done in defense of belief systems which PROUDLY employ coercive measures to inflict their beliefs on others, on children…and to punish those who resist.
Aslan should be ashamed.

Also, while Stalin and Mao certainly attacked and repressed organized religion, it is no more accurate to claim that their violence and oppression were motivated by “Anti-theism” than it is to blame “Atheism” (which Aslan specifically admits is not the case).
They were motivated by the desire to destroy sources of social cohesion and opposition to their political and economic power – something King Henry would have been all too happy to do if he weren’t making such good use of it (and it had been even remotely possible). The same factors that make a lie of the tired assertion, “Atheism has been responsible for as many deaths as religious faith,” apply equally to “Anti-theism”.  Playing sophomoric semantic games and substituting Christopher Hitchens for Josef Stalin does not advance Aslan’s argument. Sadly, neither does it embarrass him.

Like religious fundamentalism, New Atheism is primarily a reactionary phenomenon, one that responds to religion with the same venomous ire with which religious fundamentalists respond to atheism. What one finds in the writings of anti-theist ideologues like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is the same sense of utter certainty, the same claim to a monopoly on truth, the same close-mindedness that views one’s own position as unequivocally good and one’s opponent’s views as not just wrong but irrational and even stupid, the same intolerance for alternative explanations, the same rabid adherents (as anyone who has dared criticize Dawkins or Harris on social media can attest), and, most shockingly, the same proselytizing fervor that one sees in any fundamentalist community.

Another shallow attempt to liken “New Atheism” to religious fundamentalism: they are both reactionary responses.  In fact, they’re responses to each other!

Bullshit.  Absolute ginned up cocktwaddle.

Religious fundamentalism is in no way a reaction to atheism. It is entirely predicated on an absolute and enduring certainty about the nature of the world in which we live; its evil a direct consequence of divine warrant to inflict their god upon others.

The suggestion that religious zealotry is in any way a response to godlessness only plainly demonstrates the distorted and disingenuous methods Reza Aslan casually employs, and the kind of premises which he attempts to pass off as simple and obvious facts.

Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris make no claims to a monopoly on truth. They do, however, object to demonstrable falsehood being propagated as historical fact, and to demonstrable harms being treated with fawning respect simply because they come wrapped in delusional convictions about inerrant words from omnipotent creators.
Alternative explanations? This is not a fucking question of alternative explanations. Evolution is a fact. Honour killings and beheading people for apostasy are morally wrong.

Aslan sets up BOTH SIDES and claims each views the other as irrational and stupid. Well, one side claims that the world is 10,000 years old, women should not control their own bodies and condoms are a sin (among other things); that anyone who rejects Islam deserves to die (among other things).

One side wants to inflict their religious views on children, pregnant women, unmarried women, homosexuals, non-believers, cartoonists, authors, education…and every damn thing they demand is rooted in a fairy tale.

But, according to Aslan, anyone who considers that to be foolish, stupid, delusional hogwash is being intolerant in precisely the same way as the fundamentalist religious crackpot making the claims.

How rude of the anti-theist to oppose the harm caused by teaching children that science is wrong and a tool of the devil.  How insensitive to point to the stonings, beheadings, burnings, mutilations, oppression and violence done only by the religious – to oppose those things AND the cause of those things!

Yes…how rude.  One ought to be insulted that Aslan expects to be taken seriously. He plainly considers his audience to be morons.

But, for Aslan, opposing blatant lies that are the proximate cause of evil is identical to arrogant certainty that one holds a monopoly on truth.
Aslan wonders why all those mean New Atheists can’t be more like the reasonable atheists – the ones who don’t want to deny people their god.
Of course, it’s a lie – a purely necessary fantasy – that Anti-theists seek to deny anyone their god.

Hitchens and Harris have been very clear about it: Keep your god, but keep it to yourself…and you may not inflict it on others. They simply recognize the world would be a much better place without that ugly excuse for evil infecting everything, and they SAY so.

Aslan finds this rude.  Have a fucking cookie.

His seemingly fair-minded request that New Atheists be more reasonable (which is really to request that we split the difference between truth and lies) is the Trojan Horse in which Aslan hides his desire to start painting everything grey.  “Sure there are bad people doing bad things, but there are lots of good people who believe in god, so…you know, let’s not blame god. The IDEA of god is very comforting for lots of people.  It’s spiritual, and that’s important. It’s tradition! It’s NUANCED! You just don’t understand it as well as I do.”
Aslan inverts the perfectly reasonable qualifications clearly elucidated by Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins: to the degree that the faithful start being more reasonable (stop inflicting their faith on others), the *ANTI* fades and the reasonable atheist Aslan longs for appears.
But Aslan’s attempt to be clever reveals the one-way street on which this reason operates. We’ll get no such slack from the extreme religious set. They will never split the difference between scientific fact and the tenets of their faith; never split the difference on permitting gay people to have equal rights. But those who object to these things must be more reasonable. The hypocrisy is stunning.

What is the likelihood that religious zealots will more resemble those tolerant semi-agnostics Reza eagerly counts among the faithful? That they will join Aslan in that great live-and-let-live middle ground where he and David Brooks attend church, pointing at the same awful BOTH SIDES, lamenting the lack of nuance…the intolerant extremists on both poles.
We know well enough the sort of things to expect from extreme fundamentalist religious faith.
What, exactly, constitutes an “Extreme Anti-Theist” position?
Apparently it is this:  Insisting that science be treated as science; that people be given equal rights and not murdered for a difference of belief; pointing out that god claims seem to be highly correlated with blatant examples of hideous evil; objecting to the religious oppression and murder of women; asserting that we’d all be better off without any of those delusional mythologies or the evil they necessarily inflict.
Keep your numinous, your transcendent, your humble faith that the creator of everything has a plan just for you…but you don’t get to inflict it on other people.
And, of course, that there’s no evidence upon which a belief in any god could stand.
Yes…if only we could do away with these evil fucking troublemakers.

Where are the extreme Anti-theists milling about outside churches?  Shouldn’t they be screaming epithets at believers seeking to exercise their constitutionally protected right to worship god?  But there are the believers, inflicting their god driven “counselling” on women attempting to enter medical clinics to obtain constitutionally protected services.
Where are the anti-theists going door to door, asking if you’ve lost Jesus?

Where are the beheadings for the sin of accepting a god? Surely the extremist atheists, bent on the elimination of religious faith, must be killing believers.

Where are the secular demands that homosexuals be denied the right to marry?
Apparently I’ve missed all the non-religious demands that a ridiculous and fantastic alternative explanation for the diversity of life – one with absolutely ZERO evidence to support it – be treated as plausible in the science classroom.
But, again, for Reza Aslan, the extremists on both sides are equally intolerant. Because objecting to honour killings is being just as intolerant as committing honour killings, or something.

At what point does it become fair play to simply tell Reza Aslan to pack up his bullshit false equivalency, his inflated stroke-job of religious scholarship, his crap premises and broken reasoning, and go teach some kid to write a fucking short story.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 416 other followers