Abortion is bad – so let’s get rid of sex ed

In the right mindset, this picture is ironic on any number of levels

It would seem that sexual education in Britain is in a sorry state, if the elevated teen pregnancy rate (41.9 conceptions for every 1,000 15-to-17-year-olds, according to 2007 statistics) is anything to judge by. In an attempt to try and curb these numbers (having failed – horribly – to halve them by 2010, as was their original goal), the government has now made sex ed classes mandatory for public schools (along with the usual compromises for faith-based schools – can’t have those little puritans exposed to such things as how the body works and what to do about it, right?). While this is may look like a bit of a drastic measure, I, for one, fully endorse it – the more quality sex ed kids and teens get, the better, especially with teen pregnancy rates like those. It’s just a good and sensible move overall.

But, of course, don’t expect the cranks and puritans to accept this line of thinking. In what has got to be the most pathetic bit of “journalism” since Ed West’s “FASCISM!” nonsense in the Telegraph (you just know I had to mention that), Peter Hitchens at the Mail Online presents this breathtakingly idiotic piece against sex education, and in doing so, a prime illustration in cognitive dissonance. The nonsense begins with the very first lines:

Sex education has failed. So the Establishment decrees that we must have more of it, and in fact that there shall be no escape from it.

What I don’t grasp is why the people of this country put up with so many separate insults to their intelligence in any given week.

The only “insult to their intelligence” here is Hitchens claiming that sex education has “failed”. This shows a rather abrupt misunderstanding of the nature of any education, regardless of topic. Sex ed cannot fail, no more than can education in mathematics or history. The techniques and methods used to teach sex ed may, themselves, prove faulty or ineffectual, but the matter at heart – teaching youths about the body, sex, reproduction and sexual protection – is perfectly sound and, what’s more, highly encouraged.

Now, get ready for the real stupid, people:

A good life lesson in dangers

Jonathan Whitworth, child endangerer (by proxy of trigger-happy cops)

Stop me if you’ve heard this one: a SWAT team barges into a home suspected of harboring a large amount of marijuana in the middle of the night with the family present, shoot at a pit-bull and a corgi (and killing the former) for acting defensively at strangers erupting into their home, all right before the eyes of a terrified family, including a 7-year-old boy.

And, because you know how these things go: guess how it ended? The cops only found a “small amount” of marijuana (including paraphernalia), and ended up charging the husband and father with “child endangerment”. Because, of course, the dangers of enjoying a few tokes now and then greatly eclipse those of, say, a troupe of trigger-happy cops breaking into your home and opening fire on innocent family pets.

At least the boy (who, of course, will certainly not be traumatized by this incident …) now knows that distinction, right?

(via The Agitator)

Another show of conservative empathy

Asshole … with a capital ‘C’

Conservatives aren’t particularly well known for their empathy. They’ve made this clear time and time again, especially throughout the healthcare “debate” that’s been raging for over a year now, and also through their actions and reactions to other issues – the injustices at Guantanamo Bay, the covering-up of torture, and their stance on gay rights being only a few notable examples. But at times, they can behave like total douchebags in the face of misery and tragedy if it strikes their political rivals – just take this story, for example. From No More Mister Nice Blog:

I'm not able to watch the health care summit today, but I just found out about this statement made by Democrat Louise Slaughter:

I even have one constituent -- you will not believe this, and I know you won't, but it's true -- her sister died. This poor woman had no denture. She wore her dead sister's teeth, which of course were uncomfortable and did not fit.

Do you ever believe that in America that that's where we would be?

I find that moving. Reuters correspondent Caren Bohan tweeted,

Consensus of Blair House press pool: Louise Slaughter's tale of the woman who wore her dead sister's teeth was most compelling anecdote

Here's the clip:

Yet another sad tale showing the sort of wretchedness and ordeal caused by a broken healthcare system. I’m sorry, but when you’re forced to wear your fucking dead sibling’s dentures just to have some teeth, there’s a major freaking problem with the system.

So, of course, how did conservatives react to this anecdote?

Don’t blame the insurance companies for being douchebags

In yet another moment of Rachel Maddow greatness, watch and learn as she explains how and why, in the end, you shouldn’t really blame the insurance companies for trying to cut as many of their clients loose as possible and maximize profits through underhanded and decidedly douchey tactics – it’s just what they do. She makes a very good point.

I’ve already commented on Rep. Weiner’s terrific ass-kicking of the Republicans, so I won’t touch on that here. But Maddow’s lengthy explanation of the healthcare insurance providers being companies, not people with feelings and a moral sense of should vs. shouldn’t, is the true focus of the video, and it’s a point that I honestly never even considered until now.

In other words, it’s exactly as if you put a douchebag in charge of a country. The douchebag is going to be doing some douchey things, out of greed, self-centeredness, and all thanks to a lack of empathy and compassion. He is going to cripple the country, ravage its systems and suck its lifeblood dry, all for personal gain and prosperity. You can hate the douchebag and rage against him all you want, but you still can’t really blame the douchebag for acting like such a douche – it’s what douchebags are, it’s what they do. It’s in their very nature.

This is the exact problem we have with America’s healthcare industry as it is. (And yes, it certainly is little more than an industry today.) People have placed douchebags in charge, in the form of profit-seeking companies and corporations whose role is to provide healthcare in a manner that will result in them getting richer from people’s sickness. No, people may not have directly voted to put this system in place (and if they have, I’m unaware of it), but they let it happen through the incompetent and greedy officials and politicians they elected. And now, we have companies at the head of the nation’s healthcare system, doing just what all good companies do: making money by any means necessary.

Just as with the metaphorical douchebag in charge of the country, we cannot change the system simply by altering a few details, and we cannot attempt to have the companies, themselves, change. You don’t get rid of a douchebag by appealing to his better nature – they probably have none. Instead, you kick them out on their ass and replace them with someone who actually does care about their country’s welfare and happiness.

We need a fucking public option. That’s all it comes down to. End of story.

(via @todayspolitics)

Why isn’t the Vatican also suing for the film’s portrayal of the destruction of … the Vatican?

They gonna sue me next for using the shot as a post pic?

I’m either too tired or lazy to come up with anything particularly substantive to say about this, other than … *sigh*. Brazil’ Catholic Church is suing Hollywood for the portrayal of their beloved Rio de Janeiro Jesus monument in 2012. As if they weren’t inane enough already.

Brazil's Catholic Church is suing Hollywood for using unauthorised images of Rio de Janeiro's famous Christ statue in its disaster movie 2012.

The city's archdiocese is demanding unspecified damages and interest from Columbia Pictures for showing the iconic landmark being destroyed in a worldwide apocalypse in the film that came out last year.

[…]

Lawyer Claudine Dutra says the archdiocese allows use of images of the statue "in 99 per cent of cases".

But it turned down the film studio's request to show the statue being destroyed by a giant wave.

"The archdiocese refused the use of the religious symbol during pre-production of the movie, but Columbia Pictures did not respect the prohibition," Ms Dutra said.

Ms Dutra added that "many faithful have said they are shocked and offended by the images of the destruction of this sanctuary that the archdiocese wanted to preserve".

"We want Columbia Pictures to publicly declare that it did not intend to cause offence."

So … their complaint, other than that the film-makers used the iconic statue against their will (which is ridiculous enough in itself), is that they showed it getting destroyed in the film – thus shocking and offending some people?

There’s so much silliness loaded into this issue that it’s a pain to even try and parse. First of all, the statue being copyrighted or not is utterly irrelevant. It’s a bloody landmark, there for any and all to see any time they want. If a film features some shots of it (and 2012 only featured it for about 5–10 seconds, tops, if memory serves), to complain about it would basically be establishing a precedent expecting every other film-makers that ever caught a glimpse of the monument in their works without explicit authorization to apologize or pay up as well. It’s completely silly.

Of course, this “unauthorized images” stuff is just an obvious excuse to try and shroud the real reason why they’re bringing this up: because people got their feelings hurt. You know, by watching a religious monument get destroyed. In a disaster movie. Where the entire world comes to an end. (Thereby presumably destroying every single other religious relic that ever existed.) The hypocrisy here is just absurd. For crying out loud, the film depicts the greatest of Catholic icons, the freaking Vatican itself, crumbling to pieces and crushing hundreds of people beneath it to death. Curiously, no-one seems to be whining about that. (Though, that’s probably just because I haven’t heard of Bill “Whining Jackass” Donohue’s reaction to the film, yet.)

Frankly, the fact that religious pearl-clutchers got their panties in a twist over a disaster movie depicting one of their beloved structures get pulverized can only mean one thing: we need more disaster movies destroying precious religious icons. Not only to amuse ourselves at seeing the whiners go red in the face, but also to show them how incredibly silly they’re being. It wasn’t a bloody attack on their faith or anything of it; the point of the (very short) scene was to show a beloved and well-known landmark destroyed by the natural cataclysm destroying the planet. (In a fictional end-of-days film, as if this point hadn’t been hammered home enough already.)

(via @religionnews)

Friday Canine: I wanna be a cowboydog, too

(via National Geographic)

Another hint why there isn’t more police accountability

People (I included) often ask and wonder why there isn’t more being done to clean up the corruption within law enforcement departments. Well, perhaps there would be if those tasked with reporting police malfeasance didn’t then find themselves under fire to the point where they start receiving death threats.

When he opened his locker at the NYPD’s 42nd Precinct, Officer Frank Palestro was greeted with a symbolic death threat: A mousetrap with his name on it.

Palestro, who was one of three elected precinct delegates to the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, had been outed as a “rat” for reporting acts of official corruption ordered by Lt. Susana Seda, a former midnight platoon commander who is mired in scandal.

The whistleblower “was transferred to another command for his safety,” reports the February 24 New York Daily News.

“There’s a handful of guys on the job who say they’ve got my back, but there are also people who won’t answer my calls,” Palestro laments. “My reputation is shot, but I know I did the right thing.”

/p>His reputation is “shot” and his life is in danger from those who supposedly uphold the law because he acted in defense of the truth, rather than out of tribal loyalty to the Brotherhood in Blue. Those who doubt that such choices involve danger to life and limb should discuss the matter with Frank Serpico.

Despite the fact that it is all but unheard of for a union rep to “do things like this” — that is, report incidents of official corruption to Internal Affairs — Palestro explains that he considered himself duty-bound to act on behalf of young police officers who had been ordered to perjure themselves by Lt. Seda.

Among other things, the cops had been required to issue summonses for traffic violations they hadn’t witnessed and to tamper with a gun at a crime scene. After agonizing over the allegations, Palestro made three confidential phone calls to the Internal Affairs Board between September and December. The document logging those “confidential” calls was stuffed into Palestro’s locker next to the personalized mousetrap.

Lt. Seda, according to Palestro, “told everybody I was a `f****** rat’” because he acted in the interests of the public and conscientious street officers, rather than corrupt figures further up the chain of command. Accordingly, the nine-year police veteran and union rep is being offered protection akin to that extended to defectors from criminal syndicates.

“To Serve (death threats to honest cops) and to Protect (our own asses)”, isn’t it? Certainly nothing truly shocking – we’ve all seen the same cop films where the relationship between Internal Affairs and cops is just slightly better than between Rush Limbaugh and President Obama – but that doesn’t stop it from being so depressing when these sorts of revelations are made.

(via The Agitator)

Constructing the Believer

Via Dead Wild Roses, we have more evidence that theists and religionists really are little more than godbotting automatons … literally.

Of course, you gotta be sure to include “this is true because your Lord sez it is”. Other wise it’s just half a circle in reasoning.

(via Pharyngula)

What is science?

The poetry of reality.

Pleasantly catchy, innit?

You can find the written lyrics in the YouTube video’s description.

(via Pharyngula)

Republicans KOed by Rep. Weiner’s humongous brass balls

That’s a title that was just meant for this site. (Or possibly Fark.) The Republicans haven’t been bitchslapped this good in far too long: watch as Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) goes off on their hypocritical asses, laying out the facts they try so hard to silence: that few of them are any more than whores for the insurance companies and who stop at nothing to try and deny the very policies that they, themselves, originally opt to implement. This is just brilliant.

Of course, it was only natural that the dishonest cowards try and have Weiner silenced over and over again … Though, admittedly, it’s just unwise (even if wholly understandable, and even deserved) to use such strong rhetoric in a place filled with rules against such forms of free expression. Nevertheless, he certainly got his point across … along with the future votes of thousands more, I’d reckon.

(via @todayspolitics)

Keith Olbermann, healthcare reform, and “life panels”

The only way to ever truly get a credible and authoritative voice concerning an issue is when you’ve personally experienced it, either yourself, or through a loved one. And this is what gives this latest Special Comment by Keith Olbermann that extra “hear me!” power: you can tell the man knows exactly what the fuck he’s talking about, which gives him the foresight to know exactly what needs to be done.

I still think he was too soft on the soulless, politicizing, morally bankrupt whores who speak with only one voice: that of whichever health insurance company is kissing their ass the most lecherously. (But, I blame the FCC for that.) These self-serving ghouls should be no more than used car salesmen. Not powerful political figures at the helm of the entire country’s direction regarding the basic, fundamental and humane right to healthcare.

(via @todayspolitics)

FAIL Quote of the Day: How long can you fall in the pit of Ray Comfort’s ignorance?

In response to a commenter accusing him of not knowing the first thing about science, particularly for his analogy that falling is actually violating gravity, the Mustachioed Buffoon makes it clear how he knows even less of science than one may have thought possible:

If you hit the ground at 120 mph from 1,000 feet, you will suffer the consequences of violating what physics.about.com calls the law of gravity. If you will remember the context in which I called gravity a law--I said that if you break the law of gravity, you will suffer the consequences, and if you violate God’s Law you will suffer the consequences--"The soul that sins, it shall die."

Except that, first of all, what we mean by “laws” in physics (or science in general) are basically established facts. There can simply be no equating them to other usages of the word “law”, such as in the human rule of law, which is little more than a bunch of abstract guidelines scribbled down in books and enforced through other concepts, such as authority and disciplining. They are not observable, testable and quantifiable “facts of nature”. Saying that because our human laws can be broken, therefore laws of physics can be as well, is utterly ridiculous; it’s the ultimate false comparison and denotes how profound Ray’s ignorance runs.

Then, if one were to violate a physical law (which is always possible, only in most cases, it would require immense amounts of energy, more than we can possibly produce), it means that we are doing something contrary to what is supposed to be happening. In other words: violating the law of gravity would mean not being attracted to objects of large mass (such as, say, the Earth) and simply floating away. Ray’s analogy of breaking the law of gravity by plummeting to the ground and the “penalty” being injury or death is, again, completely absurd and shows no less than a massive misunderstanding of the basics of physics, if not science in general.

Ray Comfort, for continuing to deny your own monumental shortcomings in terms of basic comprehension of basic scientific notions and then parading this very ignorance around and admonishing those who actually do know something about science – this, is why you FAIL.

Yahtzee doesn’t like the Old Testament God’s view on sex

Oh, how I love Zero Punctuation, from the brilliantly twisted machiavellian mind of Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw. And quotes like these symbolize why:

The Divine Comedy really does paint God as little bit “two choir boys short of a [?] racket”, if all that Old Testament business didn’t already tip you off. ‘Hey!’ says God. ‘I’ve made it so it feels really, really good to stick certain body parts together and jiggle them around, and hardwired your brain to want to do it pretty much 24/7 between the ages of 13 and 70. But if you actually do it without a special permission slip from the Church, then I’m going to light you on fire.’ And that’s just in Purgatory.

That’s some good blasphemy. And it works even better with the video. Speaking of which, watch it, here. [Warning: mild NSFW language]

Admit it – now you’re hooked, too.

NASA on Global Warming

NASA has released this great video that covers all the basics of the mechanisms and effects of Global Warming, from how the Sun’s rays affect the Earth’s atmosphere to the signs that clearly indicate how the planet’s average global temperature is rising. It’s nothing really new, but it’s a very good grounding; if anything, it’s worth a watch just for the nifty animations.

You should also check out their Global Warming-oriented website, A Warming World, where they delve more into the details of climate change and it’s oncoming effects, along with tackling and debunking some of the usual denialist claims.

Global Warming is a fact, people. Get used to it.

(via Bad Astronomy)

How not to teach your kids about swear words

The double facepalm: for emergencies only

Having read this piece of utter inane garbage from third-rate comedian and actress Victoria Jackson over at Big Hollywood, I’m now at a loss for words. Though, I’m not sure whether it’s from the potent mixture of sheer indignation, stupefaction and incredulity, or that this is how this woman actually chooses to teach her young daughter about the evils of bad words:

My daughter when she was 8 asked me if she was allowed to say F-A-R-T. I said, “Absolutely not. Even if we weren’t Christians, it is not lady like. Besides, when do you ever need to say it? When someone does one you are supposed to pretend you didn’t smell or hear it. That’s polite.”

“Pleasssse Mommy,” she pleaded. “Everybody says it. Even my teachers.”

“Well, we don’t say it. We say Putt Putt. Aubbie is a nut. She has a rubber butt. And every time she turns around it goes putt putt. My Mom taught me that.”

“What?! Everyone would make fun of me if I said that.”

“Why do you have to be like everyone? Why don’t you be a trendsetter? Call it a razzamatazz. I bet everyone will copy you. But, wait, when do you have to say this?”

“Jasmine talks about it all the time.”

“Oh. Jasmine who stole your lunch money and talks about sex?”

“Can I say Fert?”

I finally said, “Honey, if you start with the bad words, like F-A-R-T, it leads to F-U-C-K and that leads to cigarettes, and that leads to alcohol, and that leads to pot, then coke, and then heroin.”

“Mommy, you think if I say Fert, I will become a heroin addict.”

“Yep…or worse, Rahm Emanuel. Good Night!”

I’m not sure which is worse here: that this idiot has a blog; that she could actually post something this stupid; that this post already has 215 comments at the time of writing this; that the vast majority of these 215 comments actually agree with her; that she decided “fart” was a word so evil that children shouldn’t use it; that she was able to reproduce; that the poor child now has this monumentally stupid woman for a mother; that there’s a chance the poor girl could now go around saying stuff like “putt putt”, “razzamatazz” or “fert”; or, perhaps most of all, that nature somehow granted this moron the right to raise a child at all.

This could almost pass for satire if it weren’t so revoltingly pathetic. Natural selection should show a heck of a lot more discretion at times.

(via Dispatches From the Culture Wars)

Virginia now (once again) open for discrimination against gays

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell

When Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA) took office in 2006, one of his first acts was to sign into law an anti-discrimination bill that included everything, including gender, religion, ethnicity – and also sexual orientation. Seems like a rather sensible, if not to say utterly obvious, bit of legislation, no? Well, apparently, not to the new wingnutty governor, Bob McDonnell (Republican, of course), who made sure that only a few weeks upon entering office, the anti-discrimination bill was slightly reworked – with the sexual orientation protection sneakily removed.

McDonnell (R) on Feb. 5 signed an executive order that prohibits discrimination "on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities," as well as veterans.

It rescinds the order that Gov. Tim Kaine signed Jan. 14, 2006 as one of his first actions. After promising a "fair and inclusive" administration in his inaugural address, Kaine (D) added veterans to the non-discrimination policy - and sexual orientation.

McDonnell's office sent along this memo from his chief of staff that they have suggested to reporters prevents any and all discrimination. It reads, in part:

It shall be the policy of the office of the Governor to ensure equal opportunity in the workplace, encourage excellence by rewarding achievement based on merit, and prohibit discrimination for any reason. Hiring, promotion, discipline and termination of employees shall be based on qualifications, performance and results.

Oh, that all sounds nice and reasonable at face value. But, if this new policy truly is all-inclusive and protects all workers from any sort of discrimination that isn’t based solely on their “qualifications, performance and results”, then why are there two such bills? If any and all discrimination is ruled out in the second memo, then what’s the point of keeping the first policy, sans the protection for sexual orientation? Or, if the first was judged good enough, then why the need for the second memo, clarifying how there will supposedly be no discrimination, period?

Of course, considering the context, that McDonnell was so quick and eager to strike down the sexual orientation protection from the original anti-discrimination bill, it only becomes apparent that this is just another case of a conservative wingnut declaring open season for anti-gay discrimination.

(via Dispatches From the Culture Wars)

Ironic Quote of the Day: It’s not evolution; it’s just … different kinds!

It’s been a while since I’ve dismantled some ignorant stupidity from Ray Comfort, hasn’t it? Well, I’ve already had my FAIL Quote of the Day segment, so I suppose this will be the day’s Ironic Quote, instead:

I am continually being accused for not being educated on the theory of evolution, but most of its believers haven't any idea what it's about. Bacteria developing new strains of bacteria isn't evidence for evolution. The bacteria is still bacteria, no matter how resistant it becomes to antibiotics.

… Which is exactly what evolution is and does. Seriously, it’s the textbook definition. People tell him again and again, but Comfort really doesn’t get that evolution doesn’t mean a cat giving birth to a turtle. Evolution is nothing but small, tiny, minute changes that occur through generations and that accumulate over time, until, at some point down the line (be it thousands or millions of years), the new offshoot is so clearly distinctive that it becomes a separate species altogether.

Bacteria developing new, antibiotics-resistant strains is a perfect illustration of evolution, adaption and natural selection in action, one of the few kinds we can see with our own eyes, in our own lifetimes. To claim that it is not evolution … Well, we return to that “not being educated” bit.

FAIL Quote of the Day: Christianity, science and abortion do not mix

If only it burned the stupid, not those subjected to their bullshit

This story only broke out a day or two ago and has already made the rounds like powder in a breeze, so I’ll take the liberty to avoid making a long blog post about it and simply settle for making it into the day’s FAIL Quote segment. Here is what Virginia State Delegate and Republican Bob Marshall had to say at an anti-abortion conference aiming to stem state funding for Planned Parenthood:

“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican.

“In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”

Yes, folks, he actually said that disabled children are his loving God’s way of punishing women for abortions. And that nature is, apparently, equally a heartless gobshite and somehow knows to wreak vengeance upon innocent children for their mothers choosing to have control over their bodies.

But, hold on with those pitchforks, he says – he’s got an apology!

A story by Capital News Service regarding my remarks at a recent press conference opposing taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood conveyed the impression that I believe disabled children are a punishment for prior abortions. No one who knows me or my record would imagine that I believe or intended to communicate such an offensive notion. I have devoted a generation of work to defending disabled and unwanted children, and have always maintained that they are special blessings to their parents. Nevertheless, I regret any misimpression my poorly chosen words may have created as to my deep commitment to fighting for these vulnerable children and their families.

What pure bullshit. There was no “misimpression” or mistaking what you said or meant. Your words and their context could not possibly have ever been made any clearer: you said, and obviously do believe, that disabled children are God’s way of punishing women for abortions. Plain as day.

I’ll keep this simple and sweet: Bob Marshall, for your sheer ignorance about basic reproductive science, for your usage of demented theology as any sort of argument against abortion (or anything else), for your gruesome lack of empathy, for your absurd and transparently dishonest apology, and for being a complete, utter and indefensible jackass, you absolutely fucking FAIL.

(via Friendly Atheist)

World Cup Soccer – Horses vs. Humans

Who know beautiful equines also made star soccer players?

Good footwork, studs.

FAIL Quote of the Day: But he’s not a racist!

From closet racist Rush Limbaugh, talking about a small slip-up made by President Obama during a speech and making some royally dumbass comments:

I’m too lazy to write up a transcript, so let me summarize thusly: Limbaugh plays a clip where Obama mispronounces the word “ask” as “axe” during a speech. The fat jerk then spends the next two minutes blabbering (excruciatingly … slowly …) about how this is what Harry Reid was talking about with “[Black] dialect”, how Obama can apparently turn it on and off, and whether he (Limbaugh) should use “axe” instead of “ask” and see if he’d get beaten up … or something.

This truly represents the essence of Obama’s critics. Even assuming their arguments against Obama aren’t rooted in some form of racism one way or another (though this certainly cannot be said for all, or even most, of them), their methods are always the same: ignore what the President actually means and just focus on whatever you can twist and use to your guise to further promote the notion that the evil Black Commie President is out to get you. (With socialized healthcare.)

However, what’s most ironic of all, of course, is how Limbaugh attacks Obama for being this “clean, crisp, calm, cool, new articulate president”, whereas he spent the last eight years licking the ass of one of the most incompetent, blundering public speakers who ever became President. Truly, all sense of irony is forever lost on the likes of hypocritical and racist oaf, and this, Rush Limbaugh, is why you are such an unmitigated FAILure.

(via @todayspolitics)

Don’t ask the idiots about science

Skepticism

One always does prefer an honest debate where both (or more) sides are well represented and argued. However, of course, sometimes there aren’t two sides to an issue, especially when it comes to scientific matters (such as Evolution vs. Creationism, “alternative medicine” vs. actual science-based medicine, etc.). I’ve already posted the great (though slightly over-the-top) SMBC Theater parody video on the issue of “presenting both sides”, and now, it’s time for Cracked to take a shot at it, in an article about 5 Things The Media Loves Pretending Are News. And, guess what their #5 is …?

Let's Ask the Idiots About Science

When it comes to matters of opinion or personal beliefs, it is absolutely the duty of the news media to report both sides (and any extra sides there may be, on those rare odd occasions when there are somehow more than two). It doesn't matter which one they agree with, they need to acknowledge the fact that some people think gay marriage is a right and others think the gays are forming a unicorn army that will kill us all.

When it comes to matters of fact, however, they absolutely do not have that duty. Particularly when it comes to technical or scientific matters where it takes somebody with training to speak knowledgably on the subject.

If we're talking about if, say, vaccines cause autism, we need to hear from scientists. That's a scientific issue. We do not need to hear from Jenny McCarthy or Jim fucking Carrey, in the name of giving "both sides." Jim and Jenny don't get a side. They have no background in the subject, and it's one that requires fucking background.

Sure, they can talk about poisonous vaccines to Oprah or whoever is sitting next to them at the Lakers game all they want. They have freedom of speech. That freedom does not guarantee them a seat on a panel of experts.

Yet, this kind of stupidity happens constantly. You get articles like this one from the Toronto Star, explaining how an investigation revealed how World Trade Center building 7 collapsed:

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.

The organization they mentioned, the NIST, studies how buildings collapse so that they can make sure future buildings don't collapse. But instead of going into further detail on their extensive investigation, we get this:

Keep your puritanical fear of sexiness to yourself, Senator(s)

PH3AR TEH BOOBIEZ!!!11!

Once again, from the annex of Stupid Fucking Things that Show How the Incompetent Fools in the Government Really Should Refocus Their Priorities:

Never nude strip club bill passes Missouri Senate

Only two Missouri senators voted against puritanical Matt Bartle's bill that would ban nudity in strip clubs, keep strippers six feet away from customers, shut down adult stores and clubs before midnight, outlaw liquor sales and create a buffer zone.

That means 29 voted for it (so says PrimeBuzz) and the bill is off to the House.

That’s the whole article. It really doesn’t need to be any longer. Boob-fearing asshats really need to keep their silliness to themselves. Meanwhile, my fingers are crossed that the House will see through this nonsense and strike it down quickly.

(via The Agitator)

Why don’t they all say this?

Police

Here’s a sheriff saying something that law enforcement officials don’t say nearly often enough, in response to a dog killing in Fayette County, West Virginia:

Sheriff Steve Kessler said deputies belive ^[sic] the Maremma sheepdog was shot inside a fenced-in yard sometime after midnight Monday. The dog appeared to have been shot with a large caliber weapon.

"I want to stress that this dog was inside of a fenced-in yard when it was shot and killed," Kessler said. "Anyone who would do something like this is cruel, cold-hearted and a coward to boot."

It’s good of him to say this, but it doesn’t help that so many such officials – arguably the vast majority – act like they simply don’t care, regardless whether dogs are shot and killed time and time again, or even when they’re viciously tortured – and never for any good reason, other than that they were there.

(via The Agitator)

Legislatures try to square away Global Warming with … votes

Global Warming

Global Warming, just as with Evolution, alongside Gravity, Wave theory of light and Germ Theory, is a science. And as with any science, it is not open to debate or interpretation, and you cannot “solve it” by voting for or against whether it actually exists. The concrete scientific evidence for man-made global warming/climate change is overwhelming and incontrovertible, supported and strengthened by all sorts of various branches of evidence, and whatever noise Global Warming denialists keep introducing into the “debate” to try and muddy up the waters is routinely and thoroughly debunked, time and time (and time) again.

Naturally, though, good science and facts never inhibit legislators with unscientific and politicized agendas from trying to “settle” issues on their own, as though a scientific theory’s validity could be determined by the results of a vote. This time, they’ve taken their crankery and denialism one step further than usual: the State Legislatures of Utah and South Dakota have passed resolutions that basically take a broadside at actual science and condemn so-called Global Warming “alarmism”, even going so far (in the Utah bill) as to outright dub Global Warming as a “conspiracy” (though this has been sneakily edited out).

The Utah bill is basically a demand to the EPA to pretty much halt any and all of its policies and measures taken to try and limit the amounts of C0₂ being chugged into the air, “until climate data and global warming science are substantiated”. You can smell the stench of corporate ass-licking all the way from the Moon. It includes gems such as these:

WHEREAS, proposed cap and trade legislation before the United States Congress, together with potential state actions to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2), would result in significantly higher energy costs to American consumers, business, and industry;

So: because life would become more expensive, Global Warming must be false.

WHEREAS, global temperatures have been level and declining in some areas over the past 12 years;

False! Global temperatures have been steadily warming, according to records dating back to the late 1800s, with the last decade (2000–2009) being the warmest in recorded history.

WHEREAS, the "hockey stick" global warming assertion has been discredited and climate alarmists' carbon dioxide-related global warming hypothesis is unable to account for the current downturn in global temperatures;

Denialists absolutely love to claim how the “hockey stick”, the sharp sudden rise in atmospheric gas levels and temperatures, is supposedly false. Despite their accusations of such being absolute rubbish: the “hockey stick” is perfectly substantiated and supported by loads of credible, peer-reviewed scientific research.

Even CPAC conservatives recognize an asshole

How much of a vile ass do you have to be for even the sort of brain-dead mulch that is the audience at CPAC to jeer at yell at you? Ryan Sorba from Young Americans for Freedom actually stood at the pulpit and condemned CPAC for giving the gay Republican group GoPride their own booth at the convention. The levels of sheer arrogant douchebaggery coming from this guy are incredible.

All in all, I am somewhat relieved that he was roundly and soundly booed by all the others. There may just be some sliver of hope for the GOP yet … though I wouldn’t call myself optimistic.

(via Dispatches From the Culture Wars)

There’s probably no [superstition]. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life

Courtesy of Science, Reason and Critical Thinking, we’re brought this expounding on the original hit atheist bus ad campaign. Really, they should plaster these all over cities … (technical challenges of posting animated images notwithstanding).

What a perfect addition to my lower left sidebar. Truly.

(via Friendly Atheist)

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t

“How dare he do the job of killin’ terrorists better than we did?!”

Poor President Obama. There’s just no way he can ever do it right and please the Republicans, is there? Either he’s too soft on terrorists, what with all those sissy little “civilian trials” and “criminal rights” and “abiding by the freakin’ Constitution”, or he’s too tough when he starts eliminating them too rapidly.

Just how unpopular are President Barack Obama's anti-terrorism policies with his Republican critics? Even when he's killing terrorists they find flaws.

At a panel on national security policy at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday, a prominent lawyer from the Bush administration's Department of Justice said he was concerned that the higher number of terrorist executions taking place under Obama was compromising U.S. intelligence operations.

"Why have executions increased?" asked Viet Dinh, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and one of the authors of the USA Patriot Act. Citing a recent Washington Post article on the increased targeted killing of terrorists, Dinh complained that "the president and vice president expound this fact as a fact that they are actually successful in war."

"That doesn't mean I think they are not illegitimate," he added. "No, we have every right to kill the other side's warriors. But at what cost? When we do not have an effective detention policy the only option we have is to kill them before we can detain them. And if we don't detain them, we don't know what they know and what they are up to."

So, his basic argument – other than his complaint that, somehow, Obama and his administration proving that they know their stuff in war is supposedly a bad thing – seems to be that Obama is killing so many of ’em terrorists that there will be no-one left to torture interrogate! But, where shall we get our intel, then, if we keep killing all the baddies?

Oh, CPAC: a fat serving of demagogy wrapped around in a steaming coating of ignorance in a dish of oven-baked paranoia, drenched in sauce à la arrogance, complete with sides of dishonesty, propaganda and faux outrage, served with a glass of freshly squeezed diluted disgrace, and the whole with a dessert with a slight, palpable taste of sedition.

Lovely.

(via @todayspolitics)

FAIL Quote of the Day: Yet another “religious freedom” argument

With this magical touch, you shall be … absolutely no better off than before

One day, people may realize how ridiculous it is to equate the legalization basic civil rights for minorities that are traditionally discriminated against by religionists, to “oppressing their religious freedom”. But, today is not that day. Instead, here is the Catholic News Agency’s fresh argument against the imminent repeal of the anti-gay “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the U.S. Military:

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot said that if the military is forced to promote homosexual behavior there will be “open conflict between the virtues taught by chaplains and the moral message delivered by the military.”

“In such a conflict, it’s obvious who will win and who will lose,” Theriot claimed. “If the state favors the demands of the homosexual activists over the First Amendment, it is only a matter of time before the military censors the religious expression of its chaplains and marginalizes denominations that teach what the Bible says about homosexual behavior.”

You can tell how prejudiced the article is just by noticing its phrasing of how the military would somehow be “forced to promote homosexual behavior”, which is absolute bullshit. Repealing DADT would merely result in gays not being legally discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation, and nothing more. Anyone who somehow extracts from this that there will then be “promotion of homosexual behavior” immediately throws their ignorance and bigotry into relief. And that’s not even to mention all that nonsense about “moral messages”, “homosexual activists”, censorship of the First Amendment, and so on.

Kevin Theriot, merely for being thick and ignorant enough to bring up that tired and endlessly refuted “religious freedom” argument, in addition being arrogant enough to presume that Catholicism provides the sole true virtues and morality in the military, and that what the Bible (of all things!) has to say about gays is of any relevance, you FAIL.

(via @todayspolitics)

Rachel Maddow: fact-checking the CPAC convention

Sometimes, I have to wonder if Maddow isn’t the only journalist in the friggin’ mainstream media that actually cares about, you know, journalism. (Other than others like Jon Stewart and even Stephen Colbert, although the latter’s brand of journalism is understandably less serious in tone.) For example, I haven’t heard of anyone else actually tackling the CPAC convention that’s underway and sifting through the bullshit. But, as usual, Maddow did:

I don’t agree with Maddow that these dishonest buffoons actually “insulted their audience’s intelligence”, for I suspect the room’s average IQ couldn’t have been far above the room’s average temperature.

(via @todayspolitics)

Friday Canine: The dark isn’t as scary if we’re together

(via National Geographic)

See these dolphins hang te— uh …

A surprising number of my poll responders (especially surprising considering there’ve only been 14 of you so far) have indicated how they’d like to see more animal photos. Well, I am one to oblige, so here you go: amazing photos of dolphins catching some really big waves off the coast of South Africa.

These are only the first three pics of a series of 10, so check them out!

(via Fark)

I fear for the world like never before

This may just be the single most depressing commercial I’ve ever seen.

I tried very, very hard to convince myself that this was a fake … it had to be … but then, the website seems legit …

I think I need to go cry in my corner now …

(via The Agitator)

Feet OFF the furniture, Black man!

Who does this BLACK President think he is?! Just look at him, acting all King-of-the-world with his feet on the Great Holy Desk of Saint Everything:

Black guy does it: OH HELL NO

That’s a privilege reserved only to White guys!

Whitey does it: no problem, bro

See? Bush does it, no problem. But B. HUSSEIN Obama does it, and it’s the end of civilized society as we know it! The world shall SUFFER for AGES!

He’s such a n— uh … n – i – argh, dammit! If only we wingnuts could use that word again! Glory be the ’50s!

(via @todayspolitics)

College is liberal indoctrination!

And this must be the liberal brainwashing headpiece

Sometimes, you just have to laugh at the absurdity of it all. This new Faux News “report” actually makes the claim that a college education is little more than – wait for it – liberal propaganda!!! *thunderclap* … That is, according to the Faux News cronies’ rather prejudiced interpretation of the conclusions of a rather little-known study that they don’t even know the methodology of.

I wanted to embed the video but can’t find the option. (If someone figures it out, please let me know.) Their general argument is: after polling a pool of about 14,000 college graduates, they found that whilst these alumni were not generally any more informed in terms of general civics aptitudes – reportedly, a full third weren’t even able to identify the three branches of the US government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) – they tended to lean quite markedly towards the lefty side of various social issues, such as abortion rights, gay marriage, and so on. Of course, this is supposedly the results of a “lack of diversity” in colleges and of all those doggone libural college professor pushing their views onto students, and whatever.

Let’s just assume that the study itself isn’t flawed in some manner (I don’t see any real reason to believe that it is, but some proper disclosure of context and methodology is always appreciated) and that college graduates really do lean more to the left in general. First: there’s no reason to assume that this is due to liberal views or beliefs being pushed upon impressionable students. There could be any number of factors influencing the results of this poll; for all we know, there could be just skewed a conservative-liberal ratio in the students entering college. Personally, with all the conservatives’ ire over schooling and public indoctrination and such nonsense, it’s really not that hard to imagine how the majority of college students may very well be mostly liberal already by the time they apply for college.

Also, I’ve got news for Faux News (and anyone else who believes their skewed interpretation of these study results): it’s not a “lack of diversity” in ideological viewpoints and political stances that leads to more students leaning to the left of the political spectrum. It’s quite the opposite: if anything, it’s precisely an affluence in all sorts of diversity of thought and beliefs that is most likely to “skew” someone’s own ideas towards liberalism in general. After all, this is the very point that Tucker Carlson actually argued in the video:

CARLSON: ‘I think that there are there are other benefits to college: socialization, broadening of horizons, new experiences, etc. – you can definitely make a case for college.’

This aspect of college life – being exposed to new ideas, new beliefs, different manners of thinking – are the exact things that open students’ minds, and in so doing, basically promote the sort of values and thinking that are characteristic to liberalism: freethought, open-mindedness and acceptance. To say that college promotes liberalism in students is definitely a truth – but nothing like the biased, mangled manner presented by Faux News, where this is supposedly the result of indoctrination and propaganda.

(via @todayspolitics)

Debunking climate change denialists on the IPCC

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has come under quite a bit of fire recently, thanks to numerous reports about sloppy science, poorly sourced articles, typos, and various other assorted “mistakes”. The recent pseudo-scandal of the hacked Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails, known as “Climategate” certainly didn’t help matters at all, serving only to fuel more conservative ire over the “lies”, “propaganda” and even the “hoax” of man-made Global Warming/Climate Change. Of course, the last thing any of these “Global Warming skeptics” (though “denialists” is a far more accurate label for most of these cranks) care about is the science, for anything that contradicts their ideological nonsense about how everything is just fine an’ dandy just has to be wrong, and those who push such news must all be dishonest charlatans or incompetent fools.

One thing that’s reliably consistent about these sorts of “scandals” and outbreaks of reports on supposed errors and sloppy science work is how they always end up refuted, sooner or later, by actual climate scientists (such as at the great Real Climate) who make a damn sight more sense than any of the so-called “skeptics”. And, once again, this pattern has come to repeat itself (as all good patterns do): rather than let yourself be taken in by all these accusations of bad science and mistakes and cover-ups and yadda yadda yadda, take the time to check out this excellent debunking of these crazed claims over at the SpeakEasy blog at AlterNet.

This headline, from Sunday’s Washington Post, is factually inaccurate:

Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda

You could read the entire article that follows and come away with no idea that there have in fact been zero errors identified in the UN climate change panel’s science.

[…]

What the reporters don’t tell their readers is that there have been no errors, no typos and certainly no “sloppy citations” in the panel’s reports on the science of climate change.

Here are the basic facts: the IPCC has three working groups. Working group one evaluates the science of climate change. They’ve found overwhelming evidence — irrefutable scientific evidence — of man-made warming.

Working group two is not made up of climatologists. It is an inter-disciplinary group evaluating the human impacts of climate change. Its members are drawn from biological and social scientists.

You tell ’em, kid

He’d better be class president

You know the legislators of a state are a bunch of incompetent fools when they need a 13-year-old to set them straight about Daylight Saving Time.

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - Daylight Saving Time in Utah is safe, thanks, in no small part, to a 13-year-old boy.

A House legislative committee was debating a bill Tuesday to do away with Daylight Saving time when 13-year-old Nathan Flynn came to the rescue.

At, 8:32 am, Tuesday, Mountain Standard Time, Representative Kenneth Sumsion explained Daylight Saving Time to a slightly perplexed audience.

Rep. Sumsion said, "Only the government would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of the blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket."

That prompted a sometimes hard to follow debate among these legislative time bandits.

And then, raising the room’s average IQ by 350%:

After a few minutes of this, 13-year-old Flynn's time bomb seemed ready to go off.

So, he patiently mapped out why getting rid of Daylight Saving messed with the tilting of Earth and Utah's relationship with the Equator.

Flynn told the House Committee, "You'd have your lights on for several more hours a day then you would normally which doesn't seem smart."

Finally, when it came time to vote, a majority of lawmakers voted against the measure and with the 13-year-old.

Which led us to ask our man Flynn, "Has anyone ever told you that you seem older then 13?”

Flynn replied simply, "Yes."

I think I like this kid.

(via Fark)

Oh no he didn’t!

Oh, dear God of all things great and amusing. First, Rachel Maddow denounces Glenn Beck for claiming that the recent massive snowstorm that hit Washington, D.C., somehow contradicted – or even downright disproved – Global Warming. However, Beck then had the gall – and, undoubtedly, the severe lack of judgment – to accuse Maddow of lying, denying that he never said the “Snowpocalypse” was any sort of evidence against Global Warming. Best of all, he chose to make his point by airing a clip of Maddow’s show where she calls him out for denying GW – with her actual argument sneakily edited out.

Understandably, Maddow had a bit of a field day with this.

Sorry, Glennie, but whilst being an ass and a fool on your own show may be one thing, to accuse someone of Rachel Maddow’s caliber of lying, especially when she obviously did not, and to actually use dishonest editing tricks yourself to try and show her lie – that’s just incredibly stupid. You shouldn’t attack those much stronger and smarter than you on false accusations, you know. You might just end up looking … like an ass and a fool.

(via @todayspolitics)

I’m not saying you are a moron, Farah; you just never proved you weren’t

Joseph Farah, Crank-in-Chief at the WorldNutDaily, is an amusing specimen of an engorged ego trying desperately to shield from view his utter failure as a journalist. As a result, it’s always good entertainment to watch him squawk in protest and run around trying to tell others how the fact that he’s been a “journalist” (and I use the term here so loosely I fear it may flutter away in the breeze) for 30 years somehow makes him a heavyweight – or even marginally credible or reputable. Unfortunately for Farah, it doesn’t. A journalist’s merits are derived by the quality of their work, not quantity. (Any real journalist would know that.)

Here’s the latest case of the loon trying to silence criticism and soothe his butthurt ego. Last Friday, Newsweek ran this piece by an intern on some of the craziest conspiracy theories of late, including (of course) the Birther lunacy:

Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
It's not clear where he must have been born instead: some say Indonesia; some say Kenya (initial suggestions that Hawaiian natives weren't citizens when he was born in Honolulu in 1961 were quickly dismissed). The point, so-called birthers say, is that he wasn't born in the good old US of A, hence isn't a natural-born citizen and therefore cannot legally be president.
Proponents: Chief birther and Beverly Hills dentist and attorney Orly Taitz, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah, Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.), former presidential and Senate candidate Alan Keyes, assorted tea partiers.
Kernel of Truth? It's fully debunked. Forged Kenyan birth certificates have been exposed, and – despite protestations to the contrary – Obama's birth certificate has been certified by the state of Hawaii, and images have been shown on national television. And that's leaving aside plenty of circumstantial proof, like birth announcements in both major Hawaiian papers from August 1961.

Granted, the inner pedant in me would like to point out how, whatever these Birther nuts may say or believe, none of them have actually outright claimed that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.; rather, they stick to their claims that he simply hasn’t shown his birth certificate (as opposed to a certificate of live birth) and therefore, hasn’t actually proven he really is from the U.S.. Of course, this is a very small and quasi insignificant distinction to make; anyone stupid enough to actually believe the President even may have been born in Kenya or something, especially after all the various and thorough debunking this stupid conspiracy theory has suffered, deserves all the ridicule they get.

Which brings us to Farah, who now threatens Newsweek with legal action unless their make a retraction. This’ll give you a larf:

I have solved Euthyphro’s Dilemma

We all know chimps are better thinkers than man, especially in matters of religion and philosophy

And it took me all of ten seconds of reflection time while waiting at the welfare office the other day. (Long story.)

For the uninitiated: the Euthyphro Dilemma stems from Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro where the Greek philosopher poses a challenge to Euthyphro, a man claiming to be an expert on religion.

“Is the morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”

Ie.: does God order something because it is righteous, or is righteous because it is ordered by God? (Seriously, you could come up with about a hundred different variations.)

Anyway. Euthyphro has puzzled philosophers, theists and theologians for millennia and still sparks debate today. Which, frankly, I can’t help but feel rather amused and derisive about, considering how transparently obvious it is.

So, what’s the answer to this famous Dilemma, you ask? It is in two parts.

The first (and most obvious) part is, as my father put it so well when I quizzed him about it … who gives a shit? To any non-theist, there is hardly any point or interest in debating the morality or nature of a deity we don’t believe even exists. You might as well ask us to debate the length of Tooth Fairy’s wand, or Santa Clause’s weight. (I still wonder how Mrs. Clause stays with him all year long cooped up in the North Pole.) However, some actually do like a little intellectual debate now and then on the matter, which is why I’m bringing it up, here.

Secondly (and perhaps more relevantly): the answer is that, quite simply, whatever God commands is morally righteous (good). It’s the only answer that fits most concepts about the sky-daddy: his supposed omniscience (all-knowing)^[1], omnipotence (all-powerful)^[2] and omnibenevolence (all-loving)^[3]. Sure, some dispute these characteristics, but they are the ones most prevalent within the writings of the Bible, so there. If Christians can’t even settle on what their God is like when they all have the exact same Holy Scriptures to learn from, then that really does speak loads about their credibility, doesn’t it? But, I digress.

The U.S. government logo: new & improved

Crude and juvenile, but oh-so-wonderfully fitting:

I actually thought it was a life raft at first glance

It’s one of those things that actually becomes more and more appropriate the more you think about it.

(via @todayspolitics)

Oh, how times and politics have changed

Because I’m all for spoilers

This is probably one of the biggest political tragedies I’ve ever heard of. First, just read this bit, from the Daily Kos:

Please help me discover the origins of this brilliant party platform:

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people.

Which also includes this inspiring sentiment:

In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human.

And this:

Government must have a heart as well as a head.

MeMeMeMeMe's diary :: ::

I think a majority of Americans would get behind this platform, how about you?

A foreign policy based on international cooperation:

We shall continue vigorously to support the United Nations.

A call to civil service:

We will vigorously promote, as we have in the past, a non-political career service under the merit system which will attract and retain able servants of the people.

Progressive taxation:

Further reductions in taxes with particular consideration for low and middle income families.

Infrastructure:

To meet the immense demands of our expanding economy, we [will initiate] the largest highway, air and maritime programs in history, each soundly financed.

Statehood for D.C.:

We favor self-government, national suffrage and representation in the Congress of the United States for residents of the District of Columbia.

An all too chilling insight into the fundy mind

Tried to find a “fundies”-themed poster, but this will have to do

Thanks to the almost masochistic pleasure that PersonalFailure at Forever in Hell takes in hanging around dens of utter vileness and filth, we now have this clear and, frankly, downright revolting insight into just what fundies believe happens to good and honest people who just don’t believe in the Biblical God – no matter what they do.

I’m not privy to the Rapture Ready forums (and God forbid I should ever even consider joining up at such a disgusting place) so I can’t get the original text or see any original context, but just reading this stuff, I get the idea I don’t really need to. First, the original poster writes thusly:

How does one respond when someone says: "Well where do good people who aren't Christian go? Like Gandhi or Mother Theresa or my atheist friend John who will literally give you the shirt off his back and is the most kind person you'll ever met. Do you expect me to believe that good people like them are all in Hell?" (This is an excerpt from an email a co-worker sent me)

Standard sort of question, I suppose. But here’s what someone – let’s call them True Fundy – wrote in response:

I would say.....as good as people think others may be, or themselves, there is none good but God. Every man must do the will of God, there are no exceptions.I would then wait to see what they'd say. If they would agree with God, or not.

If they had a chance to know G-d and Jesus... Hell. Period. End of story.If they were somehow remotely held away from society and any and all information about their savior, then He will be the judge.It doesnt matter what Ghandi did, he was hindu. It doesnt matter what any person does on this planet for the greater good. If they are not saved by the blood of the lamb, then Hell is their destination.We are not saved through acts or deeds, but through faith in Jesus Christ. His blood covering and attoning for our sins.

It doesnt matter if the man is an athiest, agnostic, asatryu, bahai, buddhist, zoroaster, hedonist, hellenist, follower of any number of pagan religions, hindu, shiek, Jain, or any number of eastern religions... He will go to hell at death, and the final judgement be cast into the lake of fire. No exceptions.He could donate all his worldy goods to the poor. He could help anybody anywhere at anytime. He could become a police officer and fight for victims rights. He could become a politicians and strive to end poverty. He could litterally feed the worlds homeless.... Acts don't mean he will be saved at the end.

Or, shorter True Fundy: as long as you believe in Christ, you could be the evilest baby-killing, rape-murdering America-nuking son-of-a-Nazi that ever existed … and you’d still go right to Heaven when you expired.

Hard to imagine this sort of complete and utter lack of compassion. They say that religion is exacerbated by mental illness^[1]; considering the level of disconnect with empathy present in more radical Christians such as fundies, I would suggest studying whether or not psychopathy may have anything to do with it.

(via Forever in Hell)

^[1] That is, according to a recent notable study that I just can’t find despite endlessly Googling. If anyone can pull it up, it’d be much appreciated.