Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Oh for the love of...

Goddamnit, Florida, how are even your LAWYERS this stupid?

The firm of Greenberg Traurig, legal counsel to the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers, this week updated a memo it sent July 1 that says the same thing: If you issue a marriage license to two people of the same sex [outside of Washington County], you've committed a first-degree misdemeanor and could spend a year in the county jail.

At first, this seems, well, normal.  But that's only because I haven't told you something rather important just yet...

Thursday, December 11, 2014

As if I needed more reason to hate the Salvation Army

First, don't get me wrong, the SA does a lot of good.  They also do a lot of bad, however.  They have highly discriminatory policies that I just cannot stomach.  This recent story is just another example of this.  It's just straight up bullshit.

They wouldn't let a family in on a 14-below night because they had a teenage son.  Nevermind the teenage daughter, she can get in just fine, but that son...oh, no.  He's too old/young/whatever to stay here, so you can't stay here:

"They said he's too old to stay on the women's side, because of the women running around in their pajamas and they said he's too young to stay on the men's side in case some pervert wants to do whatever," [the boy's father] said.

 And yes, this is Salvation Army policy:

Oh hell YES I'm loving it (it's not you, fuck off McDonalds)

So, I'm sure you've all heard about that Ark Encounter theme park that's been getting set up in Kentucky.  If not, let me give you a real quick primer (no links, because the Friendly Atheist has all this information for you, too, and he has better writers. That, and the AiG hiring site has been taken down, and FA still has screenshots).

  • Answers in Genesis decided to make a Noah's Ark theme park (Ark Encounter).  For some reason, they decided to make this in Kentucky.
  • In order to get tax credits and breaks for the park, they made it its own, for profit organization.
  • Other organizations of the type that they made Ark Encounter have to follow certain laws in order to keep a tax-exempt status.  You know, little things like non-discriminatory hiring practices.
  • In order to attempt to do an end-run around these laws, Answers in Genesis is having Ark Encounter outsource its hiring to....Answers in Genesis.  The theory is that since AiG - the non-profit part - is the one doing the actual hiring, they don't have to follow those laws.
Well it seems Kentucky disagrees:

Kentucky has pulled potential tax credits for a proposed Noah’s Ark-based theme park, telling the developer on Wednesday that the plans had evolved from a tourist attraction into a ministry seeking to advance religion.
State tourism officials had given preliminary approval for tax incentives of potentially more than $18 million over 10 years for the Ark Encounter park slated to open in 2016, but later warned the park’s parent company, Answers in Genesis, that it could lose them if it hired only people who believed in the biblical flood.
 All I can say is "it's about goddamned time."  I'm sorry, just what about this project made you think it was anything BUT a religious ministry run by AiG? Quite frankly, you should have resigned the second you gave the approval.  What's amazing is that they promised to not discriminate in hiring when applying for the grants in the first place, and they're now complaining that they're being punished for breaking the agreement. The Modus Operandi of Christian Missionary Organizations, everybody - Try to get special treatment, then scream "PERZEKUTUNZ!" when you're denied it.

Thursday, December 4, 2014

An Open Letter to Anita Sarkeesian

Dear Anita Sarkeesian,

      I have almost no respect for you anymore, mostly due to the tweet where you say that sexism against men is impossible (though there are admittedly other factors).  I now have the opportunity to give you the chance to gain my respect back.  How?  It's rather simple:  You will just have to explain to me just how this music video is NOT sexist against men:

Note that I am not talking about the lyrics, here.  I am not talking about the song which displays rage against an ex.  I am talking about the abuse of a male by a group of women that is laughed about.  It is abhorrent.  Why is it acceptable to tie up a man, smear lipstick on his face, forcibly cut his hair, break eggs on his head, cover him in flour, and take a picture of it?

WHAT exactly makes this not sexist against men?  I can guaran-dam-tee that, were the roles reversed and it was a woman being abused by a group of men, you and I would be screaming "THIS IS MYSOGYNY!" from adjacent rooftops.  You and me both would be decrying this video as an abhorrent glorification of abuse of women.  So why does it not work that way when the victim is male?  Why don't you scream "THIS IS MISANDRY!" from the rooftop adjacent to me?  Is it because of the "+ power" part that you think is required?  Well then WHERE IS THE LACK OF POWER?  She's a damned celebrity, this was made in a professional studio, and was shared by a professional promoter.  Is it because it's not a "grand narrative"?  The video I linked to has nearly FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND VIEWS, and it is not the only copy out there!  How is this not some "grand narrative"?  And if it's alright because it's a guy getting abused, doesn't that say something about the culture, which is oh-so important to that "+ power" part of the equation according to the link you yourself provided later on?

Speaking of that link, even it disagrees with you somewhat:

Men are undoubtedly affected by sexism, but because of their privilege they don’t experience it the same way that women do; this difference in experience is acknowledged through the distinction of sexism versus gender-based prejudice.

Now, I know that you're going to try and claim that this falls under that "gender-based prejudice" part, but does it really?   Just because men have a history of being the ones in charge, that somehow softens this action?  Really?  Just because sexism isn't experienced in the same way DOES NOT FUCKING MEAN SEXISM ISN'T HAPPENING.  And even if it does, that does not change the fact that IT SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING IN THE GODDAMNED FIRST PLACE.  Institutionalized vs non-institutionalized sexism is a distinction without a difference:  the end result is the same.  So please, explain to me just how this isn't goddamned sexist.

Monday, December 1, 2014

John, Interrupted

First, thank you Bart Ehrman, for your wonderfully titled book Jesus, Interrupted which inspired the title of this blog post.

Note that this post is not about John.  Or the bible.  Other than that my reading of it has been interrupted while reading through John.

What interrupted this, you might ask?
Why, some Darren Wilson grand jury documents.  Goody!  I've heard about how softball they are, and now I get to see it for myself.  Expect a rather large bit of commentary.

Also it seems appropriate to note the creeping amounts of antisemitism and pro-Roman themes going from Mark to Matt to John.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Ken Ham Can't Keep his Propaganda Straight.

Alright, so you all remember the Nye-Ham debate a while back?  Specifically, the parts where Ham bitches about "observational science" and "historical science"?  Well, now he's applying it to climate change (link goes to RawStory article that links to his blog.  I refuse to link directly to that shill).

In his blog, he complains that scientists are using "historical science" to say that humans are the cause of climate change. As you'll recall, he defines this strange "historical science" thing to be "our interpretation of the data as opposed to the data itself" - a definition that directly conflicts with the claim that it is "science" to begin with.  But of course, there's a small problem.

That problem is the actual fucking dataIt's there.  This is not "interpretation": to say that it is is akin to saying that we interpret that the sky is fucking blue.  We are the cause, get over it you Australian slab of pig meat. This is why we call bullshit on your "observational vs. historical" bullshit.

Also, small note regarding CDMTGM:  I will be skipping over Luke to deal with John, and then revisit Luke and Acts together to properly transition to the Epistles.

Monday, November 17, 2014

CDTGM Part 4: Mark

Mark was rather sparse on the moral teachings.  It was almost exclusively Jesus healing people and telling them not to tell anyone (and of course they blab anyway).  What moral teachings it has are simply repeats, same with Jesus' actions (though it would be more accurate to say that Matt is repeating Mark).  We have a retelling of the fig tree - this time explicitly out of season - a retelling of the Legion cast-out - this time explicitly giving the pigs an owner - a restatement of the anti-divorce decree, a repeat of the racist comparison to dogs, this time with a Roman and not a Samaritan, and a reaffirmation that Jesus is using parables to deceive.

It was rather disappointing.  I expected this of John, not Mark.  Then again, the Jesus of John won't shut the hell up, so I suppose that one will work...

Next up will be Luke.  I will not include Acts, despite it being the sequel.  I want to do Jesus first, then deal with Paul and the Disciples.

Monday, November 10, 2014

CDTGM Part 3: Matthew

Apologies for this one.  It's late because (1) It's absolutely fucking stunning how much bad shit is in the Sermon on the Mount - said to be one of the most moral parts of the damn Bible, and (2) writer's block.  Anyway, let's get right into it, starting with the part that I made a tiny post about, and extrapolate more from it.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

A Strange Thought for you next Whenever 1

This may or may not become a semi-regular thing here, but here's a strange thought for you:  I can prove that you are more powerful than God is supposed to be.

Wait, what?

Exactly.  Now hold on a minute.

God can create collections of mass that we call "rocks", yes?  Commonly, when asked that if god can create  a collection of matter (called "a rock" in the scenario) so heavy he can't lift it, the answer is usually "No, that's logically impossible."

Now, I will grant that I cannot create a rock, but is that your final answer?  That god cannot create a collection of matter that he himself cannot lift?  That such a task is logically impossible.

Because if that is your final answer, not only am I more powerful than your god, I am also apparently able to defy logic.  Because I (and you) can create collections of matter so heavy that I (and you) cannot lift it.

Monday, November 3, 2014

I hate writing sometimes

As the title states, I REALLY hate writing sometimes.   Right now, I can't get what I want to say for part 3 to come out right.  STILL.  But right now that's neither here nor there, cuz I need a favor from you guys.

See, this one European pianist wants the world to forget that he sucked balls during a concert four years ago, so he's suing the Washington Post over a "right to be forgottern" put forth by E.U. courts to make them take down a review that's four years old.  What say we show them how it's done in America , hmm?  That's where you come in.

I need you to spread these two links as far across the internet as you possibly can.  The first one is the original "this guy sucks" artilce, and the other is the "this guy doesn't want us to remember that he sucks" article.  What say we exercise our "right to remember"?

Ah, you want a little more detail?  Well, I'll try to summarize the original article, as I've already given you the jist of he other one.  Apparantly, this
Dejan Lazic (This was intentional)
guy had a concert with the Atlanta Symphony where he played a piano rendition of a violin concerto that was, according to the WaPo, "attention-getting, large scale and a little empty."  He then performed another recital that was of similar lackluster performance:  one where he spent too much time with theatrical flair rather than the actual music.

Normally I wouldn't care, but this guy has triggered the Streissand effect, AND is attempting to stifle free speech.  Fuck. Him.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Christianity does not Teach Good Morality Part 3.1

Short and sweet again, because I'm still editing my post for Matthew (I've decided that each gospel gets its own part, because holy shit have you ever read the damn things from a modern morals point of view?), but this deserves special, separate mention.  Open up your bibles - should you have them - to Matthew, specifically chapter 5.  From there, find verse 39.  Read that for me.  Yes, you did read that right.  "Do not resist the one who is evil."  Now, I grant you that the surrounding verses make this seem benign, but notice the implications of all of it, especially when third parties are involved.

The surrounding verses all only talk about evil that is done to you.  Not one word about evil that is done to a third party.  What we have to do is extrapolate what Jesus wants you do to in those cases based on what is given here.  In all of the accompanying verses, Jesus tells you to give the evil one more of what he wants from you.  It is thus implied that he wants you to do the same for third parties.  If someone steals, give them even more money (thus further rewarding their deeds).  If someone murders, either kill another person for them or find them another victim, possibly yourself. Don't - as we would do today - try to, you know...stop them.

Like I said, good morality this ain't.

Sunday, October 5, 2014

Christianity does not Teach Good Morality Part 2.5

This one's gonna be short and sweet, since there's not really much to say.  It regards that one Qur'an passage I quoted in the last part.  You know, the one that says "no compulsion in religion"?  Well, some people have a problem with this passage, saying that it says nonbelievers will go to hell and burn and how is that not compulsion?  And you know what?  I'd take that claim more seriously if it weren't being put forth by people who don't say "So believe in Jesus or go burn in hell" in the next damn breath.

Yes, I've heard if from atheists, too, but I hear it the most from christians.  And in truth, one hell I don't believe in is just as persuading as another hell I don't believe in, so there's really no compulsion to me in that phrase.  For now, I stand by my conclusion from before:  the Qur'an is - to my knowledge - more tolerant of other faiths than the Bible:  the Qur'an doesn't have the muslims killing others just because of faith.

Monday, September 29, 2014

"Homo-eduphobia"? More like "You're a Fucking Moron"

Right, so first:  I'm changing the format of my current series "Christianity does not Teach Good Morality" a bit.  The next part will deal strictly with the gospels, and after that I'll go over the next few.  Since the NT is the "focus" of Christianity, I feel I should *really* get in-depth here.
Second, I came across this bit of keyboard diarrhea from some dick named Robert Lopez from "American Stinker Thinker" (link goes to Fark discussion).  I think it also deserves some...attention, so let's get right to it.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Christianity Does Not Teach Good Morality Part 2

Last time, I went over why the very foundation of modern Christianity, by focusing on the fact that Jesus' supposed death and resurrection "atone" for all misdeeds so long as you accept that atonement by repenting before you die, is not good morality.  This time, I wish to focus on the part of the bible I have more experience in:  the Old Testament.  I can already hear the objections of "but Jesus wiped all that away".  I can answer with certainty that, for our purposes, no he didn't.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Christianity Does Not Teach Good Morality Part 1

Alright, I understand that a good few of you are NOT going to like this series, but you're going to have to pay attention to what I say to understand what I mean.  I'm going to go into this in at least three parts:  a general, Christian Theology part (this one), a part specifically focusing on the Old Testament, and one focusing on Jesus and Paul (or at least what is purported to be Paul).  Perhaps I will also do a part on specific, minor sects of Christianity such as Calvinism and Christian Scientists, but for now, let us begin with the two words that (almost) all of Christianity agrees sums up their religion .

Friday, September 12, 2014

Oh he's back again...

So Eugene Deldouch...I'm sorry, Delgaudio, is back.  And he's going off on that "gay bill of special rights", which is actually called ENDA, again.  That we've already covered here.  Incoming stupid folks:

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Impeachment? For THAT??

Oh, hey, lookie:  the Tea Party Douchebags have a new Impeach Obama site, and decided to make an impeach Obama week.  No, really, it's them.  They're using it to help schedule protests.  This is odd enough, but they even have a "list of impeachable offenses" that they think make him worthy of a criminal trial.  Seriously, they think that the things on this list constitute "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"

Let's go over this one by one, shall we?

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Ken Ham is a Twit.

Of course, most of you should know this.  But now he's complaining about the fact that atheists now have a TV channel.  Seriously.  He, a very prominent member of a religion that has numerous tv channels.  He is complaining that atheists even get one.  Let's get into his little whinefest, shall we?

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

What the Fu-*BOOOM*

OK, I want you guys to look at something, and I want you to tell me if it looks like bullying or discrimination to you.

You ready?

Thursday, May 1, 2014

It seems Ken Ham is more butthurt about Bill Nye than we thought.

OK, so it's been a while.  My outrage meter must have been on the fritz or something.  BUT, I've got something interesting for you:  Apparently Answers in Genesis is pushing this new movie called "A Matter of Faith".  It's plot is almost identical to that "God is Not Dead" movie a while back:  Kid goes to college, but there's an atheist professor, hero "debates" professor, etc. etc.  I'll link you to the trailer, but I honestly recommend you skip it.  Instead I'll link you to vidmaker Mr. Repzion who takes it apart for us, before I give you my interpretation (which I doubt will be much different from Rep's, despite not yet having watched his response which somehow only JUST FREAKING NOW showed up while looking for a non-AIG source for the actual trailer.)

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Mmmmm, Pie...

Okay, so I probably DON'T have to tell you all about the morons who are upset that the new Cosmos  doesn't give time to creationists.  I'm not going to link to any articles today (which is a weird feeling, because I'm so used to being one of the few bloggers who actually do that, despite how little I post), because they're EVERYWHERE.  Go to your favorite news/aggregator site and you'll probably find three different articles on these morons.

Wait, what does that have to do with the title?

Thursday, February 27, 2014

You'd think they'd know by now...

OK, I'm sure you've heard of the douchebag that decided to try to write legislation to ban gay people from playing for the NFL, right?  Well, there's two things to this story.  The first is obvious: such discrimination is, I'm reasonably certain, a direct violation of the Equal Protection clause....again.

The second one?  Well, I can't really do it justice, so I'll let David Pakman do it for me.  He's good at keeping his amusement in check:

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Man, evangelicals have REALLY bad lawyers.

It's like they don't understand how to do their job.  Even I could kick their ass, and I only have three years of paralegal training.  Seriously, this one is just bad.

What am I talking about, you ask?  Well, the Mormons and a few various Evangelical organizations (including the Lutheran-Missouri Synod folks)have filed an amicus curae brief in the Utah marriage equality case, and their arguments are bad.  I mean "milk that you left sitting on the counter for a month in a Mexico summer" bad. I'll forgo giving them the Courier treatment (they deserve comic sans, really, but that option isn't available in the dropdown, and I'm too lazy to do so many HTML tags) and stick their crappy arguments in Trebuchet font, with my responses in the default font.  The headings are from their brief, and will denote different sections.  Stay with me, this'll get long.

Monday, January 27, 2014

Seriously‽ In THIS day and age‽

OK, y'all know about the rulings of Engel v. Vitale and Abington v. Schempp, right?  Well, if not (and the wikipedia articles are tl:dr) they say that public schools cannot endorse religion or prayer.  At all.  I mean that if you lead the class in prayer or cite a bible verse every morning in the school announcements you're breaking the goddamned law.

It seems that some dumbasses in Louisiana haven't figured that out...

Really, just read that and get back to me...

Saturday, January 11, 2014

What the...

WHERE THE BLUE BLOODY BUMFUCK ARE MY COMMENTS?!  Google, seriously, what happened?  I'm looking through my options, and it looks like nothing SHOULD have happened to them, so where are they?

EDIT:  OK Google, what the hell...Turning off Google+ comments FIXED the issue.  If this doesn't tell you that G+ is a broken piece of narwhal shit, you have narwhal shit in your brains.

Not THIS shit again...

Ugh...And I thought Eugene hit the lowest with that visit to the gay publishing house a while back...  Now he's imagining some "special rights" for gays...AGAIN...  Before we begin, he's talking about this.  Go read, at the very least, the summary.  I'll meet you after the jump.