Author Archives: Jacob Fortin

The compassion, it burns

Posted on by

In the 1960’s, an pioneering atheist by the name of Madalyn Murray O’Hair fought to have mandatory prayer banned from public schools, arguing this was a clear violation of the separation of church and state. 1963, the Supreme Court voted in her favor, and since then, classrooms around the country have stopped forcing kids to pray (it’s a common misconception people aren’t allowed to pray, but the ruling was simply to no longer make it mandatory). Since that time, many Christians feel a great amount of animosity towards this woman, and blame the “decline” of America on the fact prayer is no longer being forced on kids. This accusation is ridiculous, of course, but you can’t seem to convince them otherwise. Take this pathetic article here*, accusing Madalyn of being an immoral adulterous atheist who wanted nothing more than revenge on religion:

Those of us who believe in God and the power of prayer, recognize that if the courts had not banned prayer in schools, these tragedies [Columbine] may not have happened in the first place. Moreover, those of us who attended public school know that prayer could only help the train wrecks our public schools have become in America.

One school in Philadelphia, PA, fifteen minutes from the Abington High School, built a cement wall down the middle of the school, hoping to cut down on the ‘violence between the students’. This particular high school went through twenty principals in two years because of the violence. In addition, the wall did not help.

Therefore, I suggest that instead of cement walls, we build walls between ourselves and those trying to wipe out God altogether, and begin praying in school again.

The author of this post also suggests the murder of Madalyn is further proof violence is escalating in America, despite the fact crime is actually been going down for over a decade. This is what I love about religious folks; not only do they love dealing with insane hypothetical situations that have no basis in reality, but they make up facts (like claiming crime is more rampant now prayer is out of schools) to support their bullshit claims. The author also seems to delight in the fact Madalyn was the victim of a grisly murder, which had nothing to do with Abington School District v. Schempp. Oh the compassion: it burns!

*(UPDATE: the website and article are no longer hosted)

Boohoo, skeptics are mean!

Posted on by

It never ceases to amaze me how utterly incapable some people are of admitting defeat. A few days ago, we recorded a bonus show reporting a group of skeptics in Britain had staged a “mass suicide” at one of the largest pharmacy chains in the country. They consumed entire bottles of homeopathic “medicine” to demonstrate they are no better than placebos, arguing that Boots has no business selling what is essentially water as real medicine. Recently the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians responded by posting this up, and it’s worth a read if you want to have a good laugh:

Do these “skeptics” really think the public cares about Avogadro’s number [referring to the limit of how much substance is present in diluted form] when homeopathy has just significantly improved their toddler’s autism or offered help with any of a vast range of diseases which respond so well to homeopathic (and often not to conventional) treatment?

This is just another tantrum by the clueless wing of the scientific/medical community that can’t understand why the people don’t praise them for their ideological purity and courage, even when the fruits of their scientific labors rot like a brown banana. Note to protestors: maybe they’re just not that into you.

In other words, skeptics are big meanies who like to try and use science to ruin everyone’s good time. Don’t they know that people ignorant of the scientific method have continued to enjoy their products and attributed their body’s natural healing process to solutions that contain no trace amount of medicine at all? Who cares about intellectual integrity when you have “good feelings”?

Girl buried alive in Turkey for talking to boys

Posted on by

Here’s a scary thought: roughly half of all murders in Turkey are honor killings. That’s roughly 200 cases of women being killed by family members for the “crime” of offending the family’s honor. What does that entail, exactly? Well, take the story of Medine Memi, a teenage girl who was buried alive by her father and grandfather for having male friends.

Media reports said the father had told relatives he was unhappy that his daughter – one of nine children – had male friends. The grandfather is said to have beaten her for having relations with the opposite sex.

A postmortem examination revealed large amounts of soil in her lungs and stomach, indicating that she had been alive and conscious while being buried.

The death was so brutal the whole country is actually in shock over this, even though there are plenty of other honor killings that go on (on average about 4 a week). The girl had tried to take refuge at the police station, claiming she was being beaten by both her father and grandfather, but this being the progressive country (cough) that it is, Turkish police returned her home on three separate occasions, proving there really is no safe place in the country for young women who fear being murdered by their own family members. I don’t foresee this barbaric practice ever ending in my lifetime, and that’s a depressing thought.

Geert Wilder on trial for offending Islam

Posted on by

It’s a frightening time to have a controversial opinion in Holland, it seems. Geert Wilder is the leader of the Party for Freedom, a political party which is extremely critical of Islam. He produced a film called Fitna, where he displayed verses of the Koran beside images of the attacks of 9/11, and was accused by Muslim groups of taking these passages out of context (this is the tactic most religious folks use to “explain away” the violent rhetoric of their holy books). Now, the Dutch government is putting Wilder on trial for “offending” Islam, and if convicted, he faces up to two years in jail.

This is what it’s come down to folks. Sure, not everyone agrees with the controversial things Wilder has to say, but keep in mind the man needs 24/7 protection from fundamentalists in his own country who would love nothing more than to slit his throat like a pig (peaceful religion, my ass). He’s highlighted the fact violence against homosexuals is on the rise, and almost entirely caused by Moroccan immigrants, a fact the government would rather ignore in favor of political correctness.

It’s entirely possible the values of Dutch society are incompatible with political Islam, and if that’s the case, he shouldn’t be jailed for voicing concerns a large portion of the population share. Are we to jail other similar figures who dislike and deride religion? Is Holland so weak it needs to punish those who find the rise of political Islam in the country frightening? Let’s not forget violence has been used in the past by radical Muslims to silence those who speak negatively of their religion. Does it not prove there is a serious problem here?

Tony Blair’s wife thinks religion is a “get out of jail free” card

Posted on by

Imagine you’re waiting in line at a bank and suddenly you get in an argument with someone waiting in the queue with you. Maybe he cut in line, or maybe you’re just a dick; doesn’t really matter. Things escalate, and suddenly you sock him right in the face. Now, should you be exempt from punishment because you had just come from a religious service not 10 minutes before?

Cherie Booth sure thinks so. The judge and wife of former douchebag Prime Minister Tony Blair recently spared a man from going to jail because he was religious, and she felt this indicated something about his character. The National Secular Society is not amused, and they claim her attitude was discriminatory (would she have been so lenient with an atheist?).

I’m sick and tired of the mistaken assumption religious people are somehow more moral than their non-religious counterparts, especially when every study seems to indicate that if there is a trend, it’s usually that religion actually makes you LESS moral. It’s probably because when every decision is made for you, you don’t take the time to actually weigh the consequences of your own actions, like say, whether or not it’s OK to punch a man in the face for no fucking reason. Still, I won’t assume the accused was more violent simply because he was a religious man, but I certainly wouldn’t let anyone off the hook simply because they had just come back from mosque.

Self Help Guru James Ray arrested for manslaughter

Posted on by

I’ve made no bones about my general disdain for the self-help industry. Like religion, this insidious New Age garbage is populated almost entirely by swindlers preying on people desperate for change and meaning in their lives. Charismatic individuals with silver tongues and easy answers make millions of dollars preying on the weak and offer very little in return.

Perhaps my least favorite of these clowns is James Ray, who managed to catapult himself to stardom after appearing in the movie “The Secret“. If you don’t remember this steaming pile of crap, its basic assertion is that a universal force called “The Law of Attraction” allows thoughts to manifest themselves into reality. In other words, just think positively, and the Universe will give you what you desire; kind of like a Cosmic genie (this is what the movie actually endorses). Of course, the flip side to this ridiculousness is if bad things are happening to you, you’re the one who invited it on yourself. Ray and his ilk try and use quantum mechanics to back up their claims, but like Richard Feynman wisely stated “if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics”.

Ray has gotten in trouble a few times with his bullshit self-help techniques, but the events of October 8th, 2009 are sure to haunt him for a long time. You see, during one of his Sedona, Arizona sweat-lodge retreats (Sedona is the capital of the New Age movement it seems), three people died in his poorly build lodge, and another 18 had to be treated for burns, severe dehydration and kidney failure. Ray was untrained in this ancient Native American tradition, and he had no medical staff on hand to take care of any potential problems. He also had forced all the lodgers to fast for 36 hours before the ordeal, and even while people were passing out and vomiting, he was still telling people to stay in the sweat lodge. The results were dozens injured, and three dead.

Before his arrest today, James had tried all kinds of asinine things to remove any culpability, including hiring a medium to tell the family of the victims their deceased loved ones were busy enjoying the afterlife. Needless to say, no one was very amused. Now he gets to see if his famous Law of Attraction he so loves can help him escape the confines of jail. I sure hope you’re not having any thoughts about being raped in the shower, buddy…

Frank Zappa sticks it to Christians

Posted on by

Remember when Rock and Roll was a way of rebelling against the tyranny of religious fundamentalists? How could you not love this art form, and one of their most important ambassadors, Frank Zappa. We miss you, man!

Vatican considers British Equity Bill “unjust”

Posted on by

It seems as though the Vatican is unable to mind their own damn business, as they’ve recently opposed a piece of legislation in the UK commonly known as the “Equity Bill”. The Bill itself seems to focus on trying to tackle discrimination in workplaces, for anything ranging from age, race, gender, and (more importantly for the church) sexual orientation.

Now the Pope may be an evil scumbag, but he’s no fool; the wording he’s used to condemn this has been carefully crafted to make it look like they are only trying to defend the rights of Catholics. They say they are worried the Government would force them to employ women as priests, or worse, force their adoption agencies to allow homosexuals to have children (oh no! We can’t send them these kids to a loving home!). It’s not surprising, however, that their rhetoric doesn’t usually make any sense once you begin to scrutinize it:

“Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

“In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”

But there is a misunderstanding: sometimes in government legislation equality seems to mean that we are all absolutely equal, which we are not. We are equal in dignity.

What the fuck does that mean exactly? Does it mean we can deny some people the same basic rights as others with our heads held high? What is dignity if it plays no role in deciding how fairly and equitably we treat our fellow human beings? This is the problem with religious folks who believe in an ancient and out of date dogma; in their eyes, homosexuals and women are not on par with men, and any laws which grants these folks the same rights as heterosexual males is seen as abhorrent.

In the next few days the Catholic bishops of England and Wales will issue a further challenge to Mr Brown and the other political parties in a “religious manifesto”, or pre-election document, that will build on more than a century of Catholic social thought to argue for religious freedom, as well as care for the poor and deprived.

This is the new way the church tries to spin their obvious homophobia and misogyny; they mask it under the rhetoric of helping the poor and deprived, but ignore their basic supposition, which is that homosexuals and women don’t deserve the same rights as others. That’s it. They can write a whole manifesto tooting their own horn, but it doesn’t change the fact they have no fucking business telling a foreign nation what laws it should or should not pass. Stick to talking to your invisible friend in the sky, and leave the rest of us alone, thanks.

(props to Simon for the find)

Study finds abstinence teaching effective in delaying teen sex

Posted on by

Score one for the abstinence movement: a study, published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, found abstinence only teaching helped delay the age teens are having sex by as much as two years. Now, before you start cursing at the fact that the religious right is going to use this study to keep funding their veiled religious sexual education program, it’s important to note even the people conducting the study stressed abstinence programs are not effective in the long term. That’s because most programs misinform kids about various forms of birth control, and this is one of the main reasons why teen pregnancy rates in the US are so high.

… more than half of the students who were taught about safe sex and condom use reported having intercourse by the two-year mark, and more than 40 percent of students who received either an eight- or 12-hour lesson incorporating both abstinence education and safe sex reported having sex at two years.

So basically, abstinence only programs might delay the age kids have sex, but it doesn’t do a very good job at preventing these same kids from having babies when they are way too young.

I’m not actually surprised with the study, since it reflects the same studies which have been conducted regarding drug education programs; it turns out if you teach kids about their options, they are more likely to be curious and try them. The difference, of course, is they are less likely to make POOR decisions, which is really what education is all about. Look, you can’t stop kids from having sex (even less so than drugs); they’re hardwired by billions of years of evolution to crave it. Failing to teach kids about their options, however, is the real irresponsible thing here, and parents are sacrificing their children’s long term future in the vain hope they’ll “wait a little longer”. By delaying the inevitable and being deceptive about contraceptives and condom use, parents may have a little peace of mind, but it certainly isn’t worth the trade off.

NOTE: Turns out that it’s not even an “abstinence only” program they studied, but it was actually part of a broader sex ed program that encouraged kids to wait until they were ready while still providing information about proper birth control. This probably won’t do anything to dissuade religious folks from thinking their childish programs work, but that’s not really news, is it?

Anti-vaccination movement gets tooled

Posted on by

Remember the controversy surrounding Andrew Wakefield and his Lancet article that tried to make a link between autism and the MMR vaccine? If you don’t, the basic 30 second version goes something like this:

In 1998 Wakefield writes publishes a paper suggesting a link between autism and gastrointestinal disease with the MMR vaccine, and asks the government to stop distributing the vaccine until more study is done

In 2004, the Sunday Times reports that most of the parents of the children used in the study were recruited by a lawyer to file a lawsuit against the MMR vaccine manufacturers, and that Wakefield himself had been paid by this same lawyer to conduct the study

It was also discovered that data was falsified to prove that the symptoms had all occurred after the shot, even though many of the children showed the symptoms before actually getting vaccinated.

Flash forward to today, where the General Medical Council ruled Wakefield acted both dishonestly and irresponsibly, and had failed in his duties as a consultant. Now the Lancet has also removed his article from the archives, effectively closing an embarrassing chapter in their otherwise illustrious history.

There you have it. There really are no arguments left. The only piece of evidence “anti-vaxers” have has just been definitively proven to be a fraud, and Wakefield is disgraced. All that’s left is for the GMC to take disciplinary actions against him. Obviously, we all know this won’t do anything to stop the anti-vaccination movement, which is hell bent on proving a connection exists. They don’t need anything inconvenient like evidence to back up their claims; as far as they are concerned, they’ve already made up their minds.

It’s sad when people refuse to accept the truth, but in a way, I feel a bit of sympathy for these idiots. They want someone to blame for the fact their children are developmentally disabled, and the MMR vaccine was an easy scapegoat. It can’t be easy trying to raise a child with a disability, but it doesn’t entitle you to make shit up, and put other children at risk because you can’t accept reality. Because of their efforts, previously contained diseases like measles and rubella are back with a vengeance, and for the first time in decades people are dying from these highly preventable diseases. I personally feel embarrassed we can’t stop these morons from spreading their misinformation, even when their own studies are disgraced. When are people going to learn?

Ricky Gervais talks about ‘Invention of Lying’ atheist subplot

Posted on by

I haven’t put much effort on the podcast into hiding the fact that I thought The Invention of Lying was a bore of a flick despite a pretty amusing anti-religion side plot: one of the lies the main character tells is that everyone goes somewhere awesome after death, which then led to lies about God, rules, and all that jazz. Hilarity ensues (or so I thought it would).

I’ve heard many atheists enjoyed the movie off the strength of this part alone, so if you’re stuck on a weekend with nothing better to watch, go for it! For now though here’s part of an interview with the movie’s writer/producer/director/star and of course atheist scum Ricky Gervais talking about the religious backlash the movie received:

There’s a boldness and strength of idea underpinning The Invention Of Lying that you don’t seem to get in the vast majority of Hollywood comedies. Do you think that’s why the film struggled to find an audience in America?

Well, I think everything has to fight hard to get an audience in America.

I think the reason why critics and websites didn’t like it was obviously the religious element. I think some people felt cheated that they weren’t warned. But I don’t know what you do with that. Whether I should put a warning ‘contains atheist material’. I don’t know. Strange, really.

One reviewer said that ‘I don’t know why Ricky Gervais feels the need to shove his atheism down our throat’. I thought, woah, well this is one film that dares to presume the lack of God, whereas every other film I’ve ever seen presumes a God. There are door-to-door Bible salesmen. It’s taught in schools as fact. Children are indoctrinated with it from the age of four. And I’m the one shoving the ideas! Surely, we can have a discussion about it?

It seems a little bit unfair. And I don’t think it is atheist propaganda, in a world where no one has ever had the ability to lie, as an atheist, to suggest I believe that religion was started by man. And I put that in a film. I’d be a hypocrite to say anything else.

Did you sense that reaction was going to come?

I did. But I didn’t think that intelligent people would be so worried about it.

I tell you why I think that the film is actually more subversive than most other films. It’s because it was couched in quite a sweet Hollywood rom-com. It wasn’t a dark indie film that was a terrible existential damning sort of film. It was a really sweet, uplifting Hollywood rom-com. It just happened to be a film where there was no God.

I’d still put the main blame on unlikable characters and the underdevelopment of the ‘society where no one can lie’ concept. Plus I think the movie was buried by the studio as well, but who knows if that was because of the religious nose tweaking or because it was just kinda weak. But Gervais has some solid points: Who’s shoving what down who’s throat, exactly? And why are religious people so sensitive that a single movie with an atheistic aspect is considered so shove-tastic?

Lancaster mayor claims city is “growing a Christian community”

Posted on by

Seems like every politician these days has forgotten about the First Amendment, since they can’t stop trying to shove their religion down everyone’s throats. The latest clueless jackass is Mayor R. Rex Parris of Lancaster, in Southern California, who said during his annual State of the City address that the city was growing a Christian community.

I need [Lancaster residents] standing up and saying we’re a Christian community, and we’re proud of that,” the mayor said.

Needless to say, not everyone was thrilled with this statement, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations has demanded that he apologize for using his office to promote his religion. Parris has refused, saying it’s just the group’s way of trying to get attention. If you read the comment section of this article, it looks like the vast majority of respondents are happy with the Mayor’s speech.

Islamists will always complain about any religion unless it is their own [as opposed to Christians?].

Wether [sic] you moslems like it or not, this IS a Christian country, just as Egypt is a moslem country and just as Saudi Arabia is a moslem country [what great countries to compare yourself to!].

I don’t care what Muslims say anymore. If they don’t like the USA, then get the hell out. This country is predominately christian and Jewish [give me your poor and tired, but only if they accept Jesus Christ].

Of course, because they’re in the majority, Christians haven’t stopped to consider the corrosive effect religion has on politics; they may also have overlooked the fact there are over 30,000 different Christian sects, and many of them are so different as to be almost unrecognizable. The entire reason you separate religion and government is to avoid having to deal with a candidate’s private beliefs affecting the lives of people who have different beliefs themselves. You can bet your ass no one would have been happy if the Mayor had instead stated Lancaster was growing “an Islamic community, and we’re proud of that”. The wall separating church and state is starting to crumble, and that’s not good news for anybody.

JFK on the separation of church and state

Posted on by

It’s sad Jack’s words have since fallen on deaf ears as Christians work tirelessly to erode the wall separating church and state. This one act is the reason why your own country has enjoyed such unprecedented freedom (which isn’t what it used to be, honestly). All religions seek power and control, and are therefore antithetical to freedom, and great men like John F. Kennedy recognized this fact not so long ago. It’s a damn shame that everyone seems to have forgotten it since then.

Baptist group gets busted for child trafficking

Posted on by

A group of 10 missionaries with little experience and few braincells have been arrested in Haiti for suspected child trafficking after they attempted to sneak 33 kids out of the country. The 5 women and 5 men are members of a small Baptist church in Idaho, and claim they were merely trying to help these poor kids find new homes and new parents. The problem with their plan is not only did they have no documentation; a significant portion of the children they were attempting to sneak to the Dominican Republic were not actually orphans.

This whole business has caused a huge stir, and the government is worried more children might be taken away from their homes and loved ones and sold as sex workers (it was already a problem BEFORE the earthquake). The president has declared  he must personally approve every adoption to avoid any more potential child trafficking while the dust settles.

Now I’m going to give these idiots the benefit of the doubt; I’m sure they thought they were rescuing the children from a life of both poverty, and more specifically, evil voodoo magic. Unfortunately, since so many aid services are run by similarly well meaning religionists with brains two sizes too small, many locals are distraught that the priority is often on conversion, and not actual welfare of Haitians.

“There are many who come here with religious ideas that belong more in the time of the Inquisition,” said Max Beauvoir, head of Haiti’s Voodoo Priests Association, which represents thousands of priests and priestesses. “These types of people believe they need to save our souls and our bodies from ourselves. We need compassion, not proselytizing now, and we need aid — not just aid going to people of the Christian faith.”

The government hasn’t decided if they are going to prosecute these morons, but this whole affair could have some serious consequences for other religious groups hoping to offer aid. I would put it plainly: we’ll take your money, but you can keep your fucking religion to yourself.

This is considered hate speech?

Posted on by

I think overly sensitive Christians need to re-examine their definition of hate speech. Political hopeful William J. Kelly is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill, claiming a sign erected by the Freedom from Religion Foundation in the Illinois Capital Building is hate speech:

At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

Kelly finds this disparaging toward Christianity and other religions in general, and is suing Jesse White, Secretary of State for Illinois (who is responsible for enforcing the state’s property laws). It’s becoming quite clear, however, this is a politically motivated action rather than an honest concern about “hate speech”. He’s hoping to rally Christians around him, and I’m sure he’ll have plenty of success; after all, the recent confidence that previously silent atheists are displaying scares the hell out of them, and some people are looking for any excuse to fight the progress we’ve been making.

So what we can gather from this lawsuit is anytime you suggest religion is merely a superstition, you are effectively committing a hate crime. Is Kelly unaware of the concept of freedom of speech or is he merely afraid of it? Why do religions fear dissension so much? Do they correctly see that once people are exposed to the fact religions are merely the product of superstition and ignorance that they might abandon them? If they get to remove the sign from the Capitol Building, does that mean we get to expunge “In God We Trust” from their money too?