Saturday, February 6, 2010

154: God Would Overwhelm Me With Misery

Job 8-10
Surely God does not reject a blameless man or strengthen the hands of evildoers. - Job 8:20

Job's friends continue to try to talk him out of being sad. Again it's a lot of flowery poetic talk so they don't end up saying much. Basically they say that God would not pervert justice. And Job's kids really deserved death because they sinned. That's not really the reason, but whatever makes you feel better friends of Job. Then the friend gives our quote of the day "Surely God does not reject a blameless man or strengthen the hands of evildoers." But he just did both of those things, he rejected Job and gave him into the hands of the biggest evildoer (Satan).

Just as a side note, Job is still a huge fan of God. So I'm not sure what this conversation is about. His friends try to be talking him into loving God again, but he's already there, he's just sad.

It almost seems like Job likes God less as his friends try to say how wonderful God is. Job writes a pretty amazing critique of God, I'll quote him:
When he passes me, I cannot see him;
when he goes by, I cannot perceive him.

If he snatches away, who can stop him?
Who can say to him, 'What are you doing?'

God does not restrain his anger;
even the cohorts of Rahab cowered at his feet.

"How then can I dispute with him?
How can I find words to argue with him?

Though I were innocent, I could not answer him;
I could only plead with my Judge for mercy.

Even if I summoned him and he responded,
I do not believe he would give me a hearing.

He would crush me with a storm
and multiply my wounds for no reason.

He would not let me regain my breath
but would overwhelm me with misery.

If it is a matter of strength, he is mighty!
And if it is a matter of justice, who will summon him?

Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me;
if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty.
Basically what Job is saying (if you can't read bible speak) is that he would never summon God because he would only overwhelm him with misery. And if anyone wanted justice they shouldn't summon God (ouch).

Job goes on to say that he wishes he could bring God to a court to argue his case with him. And that he wishes there were someone between God and him to stop God's terror.

I almost want to quote the entirety of chapter 10, Job's criticism of God is so great. I'll do my best to summarize and you can go here if you want to read it yourself.

Job asks God to tell him the charges against him (that is how justice works). Of course, God can't give Job the charges, because there are none (and God doesn't make house calls)! God himself said Job is blameless in everything. He goes on to ask God if he smiles at the schemes of the wicked (no, he just aids and abets them). He asks God if he has the eyes of a mortal so that he can see the suffering he causes.

This is probably the saddest story in the bible if you believe in God (it's pretty sad even if you don't). God just randomly destroys people's lives? God, who is supposed to be all just, does things that are completely unjust? But of course, this is totally ok, because "God defines morality" so whatever he does is automatically moral. I'm calling bullshit.

The chapter ends with Job again wishing he'd never been born.

*News*
Fox (read: Faux) News knows the perfect solution for the president's problems. Ask for God's help! Because it worked so well when Bush listened to God. This is on the opinion page, for the record.

They even mention Bush's decisions:
The issues that face America as outlined in President Obama’s State of the Union address last week are, at their core, issues of the heart. Two wars may have contributed to our deficit but it was the heart of man that created the wars themselves. It was greed that began the mess on Wall Street and greed that brought about the downturn in the housing market. The need of the hour is a call to place our faith not in government but in God.
So we should look to God for the problems that God himself caused (through the prophet Bush)? The article goes on to quote a bunch of religious presidents saying God helped them. Undeniable proof God helps presidents? *check*

Maybe if we didn't vehemently opposed everything done by the other party, just because they are from the other party, we might get something done. Oops, that's nothing to do with God.

(via Faux News)

Friday, February 5, 2010

153: Job Prays for Death

Job 5-7
As a cloud vanishes and is gone, so he who goes down to the grave does not return. - Job 7:9

Today's section is pretty unexciting compared to yesterday's.

Job's friends try to comfort him (and fail). They try to tell Job that "blessed is the man whom God corrects". Right, I just killed your kids, but I'm really blessing you!

Job responds by saying he has shitty friends and that he really, really wants God to let him die. But, of course, God needs Job to live so he can prove his point to Satan. Awesome.

Job has turned into a big poem, so there's a lot of metaphor/flowery word filler.

My Bible On: Prayer



Prayer (prar) n. the act of talking with God in word or thought.

Prayer

Alternate definition
talking to the ceiling and wondering if anybody's listening [Wait, my bible is telling me that prayer is really just talking to the ceiling? Awesome.]

Is God listening when I pray? [I don't know, is he?] Does he get mad if I ask for something I don't need? [Not as mad as when you don't pray at all] If I believe hard enough, does God have to give me what I ask for? [Seems reasonable] Isn't there some promise in the Bible that says if I ask in Jesus' name, I'll get what I ask for? [Somehow I don't think so] What do I have to do to get my prayers answered? [Why does my bible never answer any of these questions?]

"This, then, is how you should pray: 'Our Father...'" - Matthew 6:9 [Short prayer.]

Prayer is remembering that God is your Father. [My dad will appreciate that.] He likes it when you stop to talk with him. [But prayer is just talking to the ceiling, by your definition.] He wants to hear how you feel and what you're thinking. And he's never upset when you talk to him about something you want. [Whoa, my bible actually answered a question for once.]

Does God listen? Why not start a prayer journal? [Does this blog count as a prayer journal?] Jot down the things you talk to God about. Take a note when a prayer is answered. [Make sure to only write down when a prayer is answered so you can increase your confirmation bias.] After a few months look back and find out for yourself that God does answer prayer. [Only find out if he does answer prayer, don't find out if he doesn't.]

"Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God... will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." - Philippians 4:6-7

There's no guarantee God will say yes when you pray. If he says no, it won't be because you didn't have enough faith. [I assume God will come in person and let you know whether your prayer is going to be answered or not. If not, then God probably wasn't involved.] It will be because what you asked for wasn't the best for you and others. [Define "best". I know a lot of people that pray for a lot of things that seem pretty damn good. Or at least not bad. "Don't let my [insert relative] die" for example.] Like a good and wise father, God only gives what's best for you.

*News*
I think I've done this before, but I'm going to let Jon Stewart take the news segment. If you haven't seen him be interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, stay and watch!


Part 1/3:


Part 2/3:


Part 3/3:

Thursday, February 4, 2010

152: The Bible Goes Off the Deep End

Job 1-4
The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away - Common paraphrase of Job 1:21 (though that's not actually what it says in any version of the bible)

It's the moment you've all (or at least I've) been waiting for. The book of Job! I'll admit that I at least know a little bit of the story line of this book, and from what I've heard it's ridiculously crazy. But I'll do my best to reserve judgment till I read it.

Job was the "greatest man among the people of the East". He had seven sons, three daughters, thousands of animals, including sheep, camels, oxen, and donkeys. Every morning he would sacrifice an animal for each of his children, just in case they had sinned the previous day. The bible says Job was "blameless and upright". I think it's safe to say this is the most sinless guy in the bible so far.

This is where the bible goes into crazy land. One day, the angels all go to visit God. Satan is among them. God brags to Satan about how wonderful his servant Job is; how he fears God and shuns evil. Satan retorts, saying that Job only worships God because he has a bunch of land. Satan contends that if Job were stripped of all his belongings, Job wouldn't worship God.

I'm going to make a reasonable prediction here. I predict, under the hypothesis that God is all knowing and all loving, that God is going to tell Satan to go screw himself and never come back. God should know the motives behind Job's worship, and what Job would do if God did, for some reason, take away all of his belongings.

What actually happens is that God says (to Satan) "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger." What?! God just told Satan to "have at it" on his most loyal servant? What's the motive? Why would God ever want to do this? The only thing God has to gain from this situation is proving Satan wrong. God presumably already knows what's going to happen. Is the God/Satan dynamic some sort of playground rivalry with human life as fodder? And I haven't even gotten to what Satan does with his new, God-approved, human plaything.

It's just another day in Job-land. His workers are in the fields plowing and his children are feasting in one of their houses. Suddenly, one of his servants runs up to him and says that all of his donkeys and oxen have been killed, along with all of the servants attending them, by a band of marauders. Only the servant telling him the story survived the attack. Before the servant can finish, another servant runs up to him and says that all of his sheep have been burned up by the fire of God, along with all of the servants attending them. Again, this is the only servant that survived.

The story repeats again, with another one of his servants telling him that another band of marauders has killed his camels and the servants attending them. Still a fourth messenger arrives, bringing news that the house containing his children has collapsed, killing all of them.

Through all of this, Job only says "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away". The bible exalts Job for not blaming God for his afflictions. Even though, in this case, God is to blame. In fact, God is the only person in this situation that isn't blameless. Satan is going to wreak havoc where ever he goes (especially if God tells him it's ok), so it's not really his fault. And Job certainly didn't do anything. God is acting like a 12 year old.

Ok, Job has been afflicted. God should be satisfied that he's proven Satan wrong, Job doesn't need to be punished (for no reason) any more... I'm so naive.

Satan comes back to God and God says "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason." God himself admits, that Satan talked him into destroying Job's family for no reason!

Satan then says "Skin for skin! A man will give all he has for his own life. But stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face." God doesn't hesitate in agreeing! Are you kidding me?

Satan goes down to Job and gives him sores all over his body. Job's wife says the first intelligent thing in the book of Job "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!" God fully deserves being cursed at this point. This idiot-God of the book of Job represents none of the qualities that I've ever heard about God. All loving: no. All knowing: no. All powerful: not if Satan can so easily toy with his mind.

Three of Job's friends come to comfort him. It seems that the rest of this book is a dialogue between the four of them. We get the first couple of pages of dialogue in today's section. Job essentially asks why people who wish for death aren't grated it, and how he wishes he'd never been born. One of his friends begins to respond but is cut off by the end of this section, so to be continued tomorrow.

Summary of today's section if that was to long for you to read: What the fuck God?

*News*
New fitness regimen, based on the bible? Jerry Anderson has apparently written a new book called "7 Ways God Made It Simple to Take Care of Your Temple". In an unrelated story, Pat Robertson claimed to leg press two thousand pounds.

How do these two stories relate? This same personal trainer that wrote that silly book tried to test Pat Robertson's 2000 pound claim:



As a side note, I think with the combination of this story and his New Year's Eve show, Anderson Cooper is my favorite news reporter. Favorite quote of the video from Anderson Cooper "For the record, Madeline Albright says she can leg press 400 pounds. And as for me, I have no muscles".

(via The Daily Breeze)

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

151: Backfire & Esther: In Review

Esther 6-10
That night the king could not sleep; so he ordered the book of the chronicles - Esther 6:1

King Xerxes can't sleep. So he orders the book of the chronicles be brought to him (not the book of Chronicles, though that would have probably helped him sleep). As he's reading a history of his own life (I guess that's what the book of the chronicles is) he remembers that Mordecai saved his life. He asks one of his servants what he did for Mordecai to pay him back. His servant tells him that he hasn't done anything to pay him back yet.

The king asks Haman what he should do for someone that he wants to honor. Haman thinks that the king is going to honor him so he tells him to give the person being honored robes the king has worn, and a horse the king has ridden. He goes on to say that one of the noble princes should ride the honoree through the streets proclaiming "This is what is done for the man the king delights to honor!"

The king thinks this is a great idea and appoints Haman as the prince that will ride Mordecai through the streets. Instead of doing what the king tells him to do, Haman robs Mordecai. Shortly thereafter the king's eunuchs arrive to take Haman to the banquet.

The king again asks Esther what she wants from him, and this time she tells him. She asks him to spare her life, and the lives of all of the Israelites. She also tells him that Haman is the mastermind behind the plot to kill all of the Israelites (as if he didn't already know that). The king leaves in a rage and Esther is left with Haman.

Haman, seeing that he's screwed, decides to beg for his life to the queen. Haman flops himself on the couch Esther is sitting on just as the king walks back in. The king is so enraged at Haman for "molesting" his wife that he has Haman hung from the very gallows that Haman was planning to hang Mordecai from.

The king sends around another order, stopping the killing of the Israelites. Mordecai is also promoted to the king's second in command. The Israelites go ahead and kill the sons of Haman for good measure. Then, after they are dead, they are hanged from the gallows. Hanging dead people seems moderately unproductive.

Esther: In Review
I think we have the first (only?) instance of a book in the bible that does not mention God (ie "God" and "Lord" are nowhere to be found in this book) once. And there were so many good opportunities. The Israelites defeated their enemies, upon running into seemingly "too good to be coincidental" good luck. Yet, nobody attributes this good luck to God? Are these people a bunch of rabid atheists?

Unsurprisingly, I have very little criticism for the book of Esther. It was a moderately fun story (the greatest story of all time in comparison to every other book so far), and no extremely over the top violence (again, in comparison to the other books). The "good guys" won, the "bad guys" lost, good (if a little badly written) short story. Oh wait, I mean this is all totally real and doesn't seem contrived.

*News*
It's always fun to find some classic arguments against atheism. Especially these terrifying "new atheists". I think this article applies to the bible today, because we've just proven that all of the characters (read: people) in Esther were rabid atheists (joke, by the way).

You know an article is going to be good when it starts like this:
The 'new atheism' is not about equality of belief but "destroying religious faith", according to a leading professor and apologist
Oh, a leading apologist said that did he? Well then it must be true! I'll take the definition off Wikipedia (which has far more street cred than a random apologist):
Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.
Not, "there are no deities" + "I hate your religion, you're stupid, I hate you too". Just "there are no deities". The article continues:
Secularism feels it holds the default position in society, and new atheists are about destroying religious faith. It has been stated that 'scientists should do everything that can be done to weaken the hold of religion'.
In exactly what way is secularism not the default position? Do babies come out of the womb praying to Allah 5 times a day? Do they instinctively know about Jesus? I'm not sure why that sentence closed out with "and atheists are about destroying religious faith".

As for scientists wanting to weaken the hold of religion. I guess. Generally religion goes in the exact opposite direction of science. So if standing by their tested hypotheses scientist are "weakening religion" then I guess they are.

There's some more classic arguments (Stalin was an atheist, therefore atheists kill people too; there is plenty of evidence for religion, but of course they don't give it, blah blah, etc etc). Then they get to morality, which I generally can't help but comment on:
"Can science deliver morality? Every man or woman is created a moral being, made in the image of God. Yet Europe is in moral drift because no-one wants to raise the God question. Where is the new atheists' moral authority?"

He warned that Dawkins' views on a morality based on genetics were highly dangerous: "No good or evil – 'we dance to dna's music'. No blame. This is very serious – and many of our young people are being taught this. 'If God does not exist, everything is permitted'."
These people seem to be forgetting a large part of society, namely, the law. If God doesn't exist we can suddenly go around killing people? I don't think so. How exactly is Europe in a "moral drift"? Are they feeling any ill effects of this moral drift? Is Europe in a constant state of war? I don't think so.

But I guess if people are truly being taught that "If God does not exist, everything is permitted" that's a pretty big problem. Strangely, I only seem to hear religious people saying that.

(via Inspire Magazine)

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

150: That Jew, Mordecai

Esther 1-5
"I'm the only person Queen Esther invited to accompany the king to the banquet she gave. And she has invited me along with the king tomorrow. But all this gives me no satisfaction as long as I see that Jew Mordecai sitting at the king's gate." - Esther 5: 12-13

Oh my science. This is actually an interesting section of story today.

The section starts with Xerxes having a banquet (I think we went back in time from Ezra/Nehemiah, I don't really know though). The banquet lasts 7 days, and the guest are invited to drink all the wine they want. Xerxes knows how to throw a party. At the same time the queen, Vashti, gives a separate banquet for the women.

On the seventh day, while Xerxes is hammered, he tells seven of his eunuchs to go fetch the queen so all of the king's guests can ogle her. The queen tells the eunuchs no. The king consults his advisers and they tell him to exile Queen Vashti forever. The king agrees. The queen is exiled forever and the king sends out an extra little note with his press release about the queen: "Every man should be ruler over his own household".

Now the king has no queen. That's where Esther comes in. The king orders many virgins from all around to his palace, but Esther stands out among them. Esther is, in fact, an Israelite. But she chooses not to reveal that to the king.

Before a girl goes to go see Xerxes she has to go through twelve months of "beauty treatments". Say what? I'm not sure what twelve months of beauty treatment does for you. Esther pleases the king so much when she finally gets to see him that she is made queen.

The other person of interest in this story is Mordecai. Mordecai is the cousin (and benefactor) of Esther. He raised her from a child because she had no parents. One day Mordecai is sitting at the "king's gate" when he hears a couple of men talking about assassinating the king. He tells Esther this, and she in tern tells the king. The two conspirators are hanged. This gives much credit to Mordecai in the eyes of the king.

Mordecai is a stubborn man. He decides not to kneel down to one of the king's officials (Haman). Unfortunately, Mordecai picked the wrong official to piss off. Haman is so pissed that he doesn't just settle for wanting to kill Mordecai, he decides to try to have all the Jews in the kingdom (Persia/Babylon I presume?) killed. Haman goes to the king and basically asks if he can kill the Jews, the king sends out his response in a dispatch to the kingdom:
Dispatches were sent by couriers to all the king's provinces with the order to destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews—young and old, women and little children—on a single day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar, and to plunder their goods.
Kill and annihilate the Jews?! That's terrible. The Jews are the only ones allowed to kill and annihilate people.

Mordecai goes to Esther and tells her to persuade the king to not kill everyone. She is afraid to go to the king without him requesting her presence but she goes anyway. The king asks her what she wants from him. Instead of telling him she throws him a banquet. He asks again while they're at the banquet. She tells him to come to another banquet the next day. (That part of the story is to be continued tomorrow)

The last part of today's section is Haman raging over Mordecai. Mordecai is still sitting at the king's gate, and when Haman comes around Mordecai shows no fear. In response to this, Haman calls together all of his friends and he talks to them about how wonderful he is. It's always the right time for a good ego stroking in Haman-land. During this ego stroking he gives us our quote of the day, which is worth repeating:
"I'm the only person Queen Esther invited to accompany the king to the banquet she gave. And she has invited me along with the king tomorrow. But all this gives me no satisfaction as long as I see that Jew Mordecai sitting at the king's gate."
Something about the bible saying "that Jew" strikes me as funny (reminds me of South Park maybe).

The section ends with Haman's wife suggesting gallows be built for Mordecai to hung. Haman is "delighted" at this suggestion and has the gallows built. (This is also to be continued tomorrow)

Fun fact: Nowhere in this section are the words "God" or "Lord" used. God is officially gone.

*News*
Woo, fundie day. Because Pharyngula stole my news.

This is in a letter to the editor to a Wyoming newspaper:
I can't speak for Doris, but as to my own Christian beliefs, there is no doubt in my mind that what I believe is right.
Ok, fair enough. Why, pray tell?:
I happen to believe that "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." And, the Bible tells us that we should not fall for the many lies from those who believe that homosexuality is OK as an "alternative lifestyle," or that atheism is perfectly acceptable, or that we can receive life-changing and helpful information from an old pot-bellied guy who apparently squinted a lot.
The basis for your belief is "I better believe in something"? Great argument. It's a good thing you didn't fall for something ridiculous like children being born to virgin mothers.

He makes sure to complete the circular logic with the standard "because the bible says so" line. He goes on to use the impenetrable argument "Darwin was ugly, so he must be wrong" (I'm assuming squinty + pot belly = Darwin). I don't think Pat Robertson is particularly attractive either, does that inherently make him wrong? I may as well finish out his letter, for completeness' sake:
Sorry, folks. I'm perfectly content where I am in life, and that's not open to debate. Perhaps if you would all take a serious look at the Bible from the point of prayerfully seeking the Savior who died for you and for me, you would understand that it is your personal responsibility to "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling." This is literally a matter of life and death.
I agree, your contentedness is not up for debate. But that doesn't make your argument a good one. "Seriously looking" at the bible while simultaneously "seeking the Savior" seems like a wildly dishonest way to go about it. If the bible is all it's cracked up to be, I'll be converted with little effort on my part (but that's not my working hypothesis at this point).

(via The Trib)

Monday, February 1, 2010

149: Steve Jobs, Our Lord and Savior & Nehemiah: In Review

Nehemiah 12-13
I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair. I made them take an oath in God's name and said: "You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves." - Nehemiah 13:25

Chapter 12 is unexciting, more lists. Nehemiah lists all the priests and Levites. They also dedicate the wall of Jerusalem with much singing and rejoicing.

Overall, like Ezra, I'm not too upset with Nehemiah until the last chapter. His only crime so far is some over-zealous ego stroking, but we're all guilty of that. In chapter 13, however, he moves on to assault and battery. I'll get to that in a minute.

Chapter 13 starts with the Israelites reading the Book of Moses aloud for everyone to hear. In the book it says there should be no Ammonites or Moabites among the Israelites. When the Israelites hear this, they exclude anyone from Ammonite or Moabite descent. Really? Were these people doing anything wrong? Or are they just excluding them for maybe-crimes that their great, great, great, ..., great, great grandfathers committed? I suspect the latter.

Nehemiah returns to Jerusalem (after visiting with king Artaxerxes for "some time"). He finds that the Israelites are buying/selling things on the sabbath. So much for crying about not following the laws in the book of Moses. I agree that these rules are stupid (sabbath laws etc.), but it'd be nice if the Israelites didn't cry about not following them every few chapters only to go back to their "bad" ways a few chapters later.

Nehemiah then finds men that had married women from other countries. *gasp* And their children spoke the language of their native land. Bi-lingual children? *double gasp* Nehemiah goes with the only obvious solution, and beats the shit out of these foreigner marrying men (and pulls their hair out). I'm not quite sure what that accomplished.

The book ends with what's really important to Nehemiah; in his own words "Remember me with favor, O my God".

Nehemiah: In Review
Another short, and seemingly pointless bible book down. I'm still waiting for this inspiring rhetoric that I was told to expect when I started reading the bible.

By the way, why did Ezra never mention Nehemiah? Nehemiah at least gives Ezra a few sentences. This is just further proof that Nehemiah may have been exaggerating his importance.

I don't have anything else thrilling to say about Nehemiah.

*News*
I actually have fun news today. No tearing people down with logic today.

What do Steve Jobs (CEO of Apple Inc., just in case you live under a rock) and Jesus have in common? A group of sometimes irrational followers. Worshiped as the bringers of a new age (of computing in Jobs' case). Constantly at work to rid the world of evil (Microsoft). Actually, what don't Steve Jobs and Jesus have in common? I'm apparently not the only one that's made the connection:

The Economist


Wired


Gizmodo


Bay of Fundie

This prompted Philip Elmer-DeWitt to write an article (where I got these pictures from) titled "Sacrilege: Steve Jobs as Jesus". To see more images, visit his blog (link at the bottom). I wonder if Philip knows what a joke is? These images are obviously not meant to be taken seriously, lighten up.

(via CNN Money Blog)

Sunday, January 31, 2010

148: Don't be That Atheist

Nehemiah 10-11
The people commended all the men who volunteered to live in Jerusalem. - Nehemiah 11:2

Another short day. And another day that's pretty much just a list (is it time for Job yet?).

The section starts out by saying they are making an agreement, and it lists all the people that will be putting their seal on it. In this agreement they promise not to do several "sinful" things, including intermarrying, buying things on the sabbath, give offerings, etc.

In chapter 11, the Israelites have to draw lots on who will go back to Jerusalem. The "exiles" of Jerusalem had become so accustom to their new homes outside of the city that they didn't want to go back. So much for the wonderful promised land.

*News*
Oh boy, we have a special day today. I'm going to hate on some atheists.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is starting a letter writing campaign, and a boycott of the US postal service for their use of Mother Teresa on stamps. Now, contrary to popular belief, Mother Teresa may not have been the wonderful person we're led to believe she was.

The FFRF is arguing that Mother Teresa is primarily remembered for being a Catholic nun, and not for being a humanitarian. This would violate the USPS' regulation against honoring "individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings". To defend their position, the FFRF is saying stupid things like this:
You can't really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did
Is the FFRF saying you can't be a humanitarian without being a Roman Catholic? I suppose atheist organizations are capable of doing mental gymnastics to support their less intelligent arguments as well. They're not done digging their grave yet:
There's this knee jerk response that everything she did was humanitarian
That "knee jerk" response would be a general public consensus. Therefore you can't really argue that she isn't remembered for being a humanitarian if you, yourself admit that most people immediately think of her as a humanitarian. Dear FFRF: You are being stupid.

You are leaving the door wide open for people to say stupid shit like this:
Mother Teresa was a woman universally beloved across the globe for her humanitarian efforts in India and around the world. Her work with the poor and the dying, the disabled and disadvantaged, with refugees, and so on earned her the Nobel Peace Prize (an honor that was actually earned, imagine that) in 1979. So when the United States Postal Service decided to honor her life with a commemorative stamp, most people were happy. But of course, since a Christian is being honored, a group of atheists are outrageously outraged and want the Post Office to cancel the stamp.
And, you know, as stupid as what that person just said is, you are being no less stupid. As an organization that's supposed to be representing a movement for intelligence, maybe you should start being a little more intelligent.

This is the final straw for me, the FFRF is totally ok with a stamp for REVEREND Martin Luther King Junior. Are you kidding me? There's a little thing called picking your battles. The FFRF has picked the wrong one.

I'm going to stop before I lose my atheist card.

(via Fox News)
 

Copyright © 2009, Page Info, Contact Me