Author Archives: Jacob Fortin

Is Your Ignorance Regular or Diet?

Posted on by

If you’ve been living under a rock, or have only recently tuned in to the ‘webs’, you may not be aware of the Creation Museum, a 27 million dollar tribute to ignorance. Over half a million people have been ‘taught’ that the earth is only 6000 years old, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted peacefully in the Garden of Eden. The exhibits involve complex animatronic robots and sophisticated equipment meant to awe and inspire visitors.

The museum itself is perhaps one of the greatest embarrassments in the world. It’s a testament to the fact we are still a long way away from being educated as a populace. It seems some people love religion so much they demand the world fit into the narrow confines of their beliefs. The true purpose of the museum is obvious once the tour nears its end. There patrons become witness to a ‘world without god’, which involves a bored teenager looking at a computer screen, and another watching a TV. Watch out parents, this could be your children!

Now the museum had a corporate partner, and it’s none other than giant Coca-Cola Inc. It seems that the thirsty, uneducated masses that make their way through the museum will be offered their product exclusively. According to the site, they’ve been partnered up with the company for a while now, but they have since made it official.

From a corporate standpoint, I can’t really find too much fault in that one. Coke wasn’t founded by scientific ideologues, and they are in the business of selling a product. At the same time, however, it’s also at our discretion to abandon a product that lends its name to such intellectual dishonesty. If you were a Coke fan, you may want to develop a taste for fruit juice instead; it’s better for you anyways.

So is it fitting that a drink that rots your teeth is a corporate sponsor to a museum that rots your brain? I think so.

History is only a teacher if you listen well

Posted on by

The Holocaust was terrible. It showed us a dark side of humanity we weren’t all willing to believe. It proved any one of us can succumb to cancerous ideologies of hatred and bigotry. I regard all genocide memorials as a warning to the human race: be mindful of messages of hate, for they are usually followed with violence and destruction.

I’m an idealist, so in my mind, the best way to avoid another potential holocaust is to make sure all human beings are properly respected, regardless of creed, race, and sexuality. It’s why I find it so tragic that a New York Holocaust memorial has become yet another victim of the bigoted attitudes of religious Orthodoxy.

Dov Hikind’s mother was in Auschwitz, and he refuses to allow other groups that also suffered at the hands of the Nazis from sharing the memorial.

“These people are not in the same category as Jewish people with regards to the Holocaust,” Hikind said following a press conference at the memorial. “It is so vastly different. You cannot compare political prisoners with Jewish victims.”

Hikind is upset because the memorial wanted to honor the tens of thousands of homosexuals, disabled, and Jehovah’s Witnesses who were also killed. In total 5 million people, who had no connection with Jews at all, were also massacred. It’s not something we tend to hear about very often, and it’s an oversight many are trying to correct.

Much of the attention to the Holocaust has been paid to the Jews, and with good merit; they suffered the most through the ordeal. It does not, however, excuse the behavior of some of their descendants who have decided the memories of other minorities are not ‘in the same category’ as their own. Last time I checked, no one likes getting killed, and the lessons of the Holocaust aren’t only ‘don’t kill the Jews’. I know human history is ripe with genocides (too many to count, really), but we should treat every single death seriously indeed.

Dov Hikind’s rejection of other ethnic groups to the memorial makes me sick. He’s just the latest addition on my growing ‘Wall of Shame‘. You’re a sad man, Dov. Your mother was a victim of crazed ideologues. Do you not think you dishonor her memory by refusing to recognize the tragedy of death simply because some of the victims were gay, or another religion? History is a teacher, but you can only learn from it if you listen closely enough. Otherwise, you find yourself repeating the same patterns, again and again…

Who Wants to go to a Book Burning?

Posted on by

I’ve heard of some pretty stupid lawsuits in my day, but this one takes the prize as most insulting and intellectually bankrupt. The case involves a number of plaintiffs who are suing a library in Milwaukee for their decision to allow a controversial book to be in the Young Adult section. The book, Baby Be-Bop, is the story of Dirk and his struggle to come to terms with his homosexuality.

The group is suing the Library for $120,000 in emotional damage and scarring. Presumably, the mere presence of the book at the premises made these individuals lose considerable sleep. They are also suing for the right to burn this book in public. What is this, the Middle Ages?

Perhaps the book will offend a few people, but so what? Do they really think their outrage gives them the right to burn books and sue non-profit institutions? We aren’t living in a fascist dictatorship, so hopefully this frivolous lawsuit will end with the members being exposed for the bigoted, anti-intellectual morons they are.

Hey, conservative Christian guys, stop trying to burn books you don’t agree with. Stop trying to tell everyone how to live their lives, and for your God’s sake, can you all just leave the rest of us who don’t buy into your bullshit alone for a while? Find a hobby that doesn’t include burning literature, please. I highly recommend thinking; it seems you’ve neglected this activity. These jerks just made the ‘Wall of Shame‘.

Pope sheds crocodile tears for victims of abuse

Posted on by

he Vatican issued this statement following the release of the Ryan report which chronicled years of abuse at the hands of priests and nuns in Catholic run reform schools, stating that Pope Benedict XVI was visibly upset and distraught. They also claim the Pope has been busy pressuring churches to be more open about the abuse. For anyone familiar with history, however, his crocodile tears are not enough to make us forget this is the same man who played a lead role in the cover up of abuses of children by the clergy.

If you really want to know how hollow and meaningless his words truly are, ask yourself how many individuals have been named in the abuses in Ireland so far. Until now, not a single name or arrest has been made. Is this beyond the power of the Pope? Of course not. If he really wanted to be part of the process, he would release the identities of every priest who committed any abuse and would rout them out of the organization. I think we can all agree such a thing will never happen; the Church is more concerned with protecting their institutions than they are in protecting kids. It’s why the abuses will never stop so long as they continue to operate with such impunity toward the law.

The governments of the world are all too gutless to demand the Vatican make the identities of offending priests public knowledge. What else can you expect from an organization that boldly claims they are the official spokesperson of an all powerful entity? Why anyone takes their claim seriously (despite the atrocities they commit) is beyond me. I can’t seem to win the argument to stop giving these guys tax free status, but do we also have to make them immune from prosecution? How insane is that?

Is it wise to grant personhood to a fetus?

Posted on by


How cruel can life be? I don’t think most of us are willing to really fathom the depth of pain, suffering and death that goes on in the world on any given day. Luckily, as human beings we are mostly isolated from the horrors and cruelty of nature. Well, most of the time, anyways.

A few months ago, a friend of mine (who will obviously remain nameless) who was pregnant with a baby girl was told the fetus suffered from a rare disorder called anencephaly, and an abortion would be needed (if you are faint of heart, I don’t suggest reading up on it). Anencephaly is a developmental disorder that occurs during day 23 to 26 of pregnancy; the time when the neural tube (a kind of precursor to the brain) fails to properly “close”. The result is a baby without a brain.

Any infant born with this condition will live only a few hours, and it’s normally recommended the pregnancy be terminated at this point, both to avoid any undo risks for the mother, and avoid the actual horrors of bringing such a child to term (they are often terribly disfigured, sometimes missing the entire top of the head).

Of course if it was up to a pro-lifer, my friend would not have been allowed to terminate the pregnancy. It was not an easy decision for her, but in the end she had to concede the pregnancy had been a failure. It was difficult for her to accept, but life moves on.

So here is a video about clever legislation that is being tabled in a number of conservative states in the US. These bills are intended to completely remove the rights women have over their bodies in favor of a very childish notion of the ‘sanctity’ of life. These government officials obviously have no real understanding of medicine, but what they do know is how to get votes, and there are enough pro-lifers to ensure their re-election if they claim to have saved hundreds of babies from termination.

Look guys, life is cruel and weird, and we cannot start giving full blown rights to organisms that have only yet begun to develop. There are many instances when abortions are unwanted but still necessary. That’s the thing most pro-lifers will never admit to, even when they themselves are faced with an unpleasant reality (after all, religious conservatives are more likely to get abortions than secular women). We can’t create laws that take reality for granted. Although I can appreciate their zeal in trying to preserve life, abortions are still needed even if they aren’t very well liked.

Get out of our Faces, Religion!

Posted on by

It’s a nice sunny weekend and you’re trying to enjoy the sunlight and fresh air. You’re not at the swankiest of events, but the opening of a new public parking space is about as much excitement as you can get. Everything is peaceful, everybody is happy, and all of a sudden you get hit in the head with a rock.

Now there are very few reasons to throw rocks at anyone. I think we can all agree that apart from perhaps being acceptable during life or death situations, the ‘throwing large rocks intended to crack people’s fragile skulls’ is a pretty dick move. Well, some Orthodox Jews living in Israel apparently think it’s kosher to pelt people with rocks because they feel doing any type of activity on a Saturday (yes, even the grand opening of a parking structure) is in clear defiance of Yahweh. Presumably, the guy can’t seem to defend himself, so he sends his minions after us.

It’s not even as though officials hadn’t taken already precautions to avoid offending religious purists. The municipality had ensured the parking structure would not be operated by any Jews, and no money would be exchanged. That wasn’t enough to stop some of the protesters from hurling used baby diapers at police.

Hey, religious wackos, can you all calm the fuck down and let people enjoy their weekend? Life can suck enough without having your day ruined by a bunch of idiots wearing ridiculous outfits throwing rocks at you. Can you guess why people are starting to get tired of all your bullshit, religion? Get the fuck out of our faces!

Pseudoscience Puts Everyone in Danger

Posted on by

We take modern medicine for granted. It’s something we hardly ever need to think about. The odds of dying of the flu are small; you’re about as likely to die from that as from accidental electrocution. But it wasn’t always this way. Just a few generations ago, before we had the ability to develop vaccines or antibiotics, infant mortality rates were frighteningly high. Children suffering from diabetes would slowly fade to nothingness, their tiny bodies literally starved to death.

The times, though, they have changed. When children are properly immunized, their odds of dying from what were once deadly diseases have dramatically been reduced, so much so that we have begun to underestimate their dangers. Worst still, a small but vocal group is working diligently to actively discourage parents from giving their children vaccines under the mistaken belief they cause autism.

Leading this unthinking and uncritical mob is former Playboy model Jenny McCarthy. Her child is autistic, and like many who believe there is a connection between the MMR vaccine and the neurological disorder, she made the inference simply from her own observation. Because the ideal time to vaccinate (roughly 13 months of age) coincidentally corresponds to the time when symptoms of the disease, a large number of individuals incorrectly assume the two are linked. Their fears and mistrust of medicine actually make them believe the idea the scientific community is purposefully suppressing information linking the vaccine with autism. The truth is no correlation has ever been found.

Take, for instance, this passionate letter author Roald Dahl issued in 1986 (re-issued last month) begging parents to immunize their children. He lost his daughter in 1962 to measles. At the time, there was no vaccine for the disease. Now it’s as easy as making an appointment with your family doctor.

Unsurprisingly, the unthinking masses have been reluctant to vaccinate their children, and as a result, this disease has been on a comeback in Britain. In 2005, there were 76 cases, and 2006 saw an increase to 100. These pale in comparison to this year so far; in Wales alone, the NHS reported the total number of cases so far is 277. A disease that once appeared beaten and downtrodden has come back with a vengeance. The problem lies in the fact that although parents may think it is their choice alone not to immunize their kids, the result is their lack of immunity puts everyone at greater risk.

When Dahl wrote his essay in 1986, 20 kids were dying every year from a highly preventable disease. It looks like the risks have just gotten higher for everyone else thanks to the tireless work of intellectual midgets like Jenny McCarthy and her pet, Jim Carrey. Can you morons all go back to making movies and leaving the job of educating people about health to the professionals? What is it about acting that makes you believe you know enough to be giving counsel to women about the health of their loved ones: was it a cameo on ER or something which made you think that was a good idea?

I Love You, Stephen Fry

Posted on by


Can you imagine if a TV host in the US had answered the question “why do people believe in religion” with: “Because they are foolish, ignorant and scared”? I’m sure people would be freaking out instead of actually paying attention to the fact that he’s absolutely right. It is foolish and ignorant to literally trust that the stuff written in the Bible actually happened. How else can you characterize professed belief in a mythological text?

Tired Christian claim #2: Without God, Morality is Impossible

Posted on by

Most of you are probably familiar with this argument. It’s inevitable that at some point in the conversation, a genuinely confused Christian may ask you how you can have a definitive moral system without the benefit of a higher power telling you what is right and wrong. As far as many Christians are concerned, the denial of God also means the denial of an absolute system of ethics.

I can understand their confusion. They have been led to believe the Bible is the absolute authority when it comes to ethical behavior, and our society is the product of Christian teachings and values. However, unbeknownst to them, western society has been influenced more by contemporary philosophers and thinkers than theologians. The reason is simple: as a moral treatise, the Bible is far too inconsistent, cruel, and incomplete to serve our needs. What are we supposed to do with the Book of Numbers, which says:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:15-18

You don’t exactly see a lot of foreign policy being dictated by Biblical scholars, do you. Or how about this passage on how to properly raise your child from Deuteronomy:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him . . . and all the men of his city shall stone him with stones that he die. Deut. 21:18-21

I’m not trying to suggest all parts of the Bible are vicious or incompatible with how we live our lives today. The ‘Golden Rule’ of treating others how you would like to be treated is something all human beings can agree on. It’s also why this rule appears in many other religious texts which predate the New Testament. The idea that people should live peacefully and love thy neighbor is not a new concept, and it certainly isn’t limited to Christianity.

The Golden Rule, however, does not necessitate the existence of a God in order for it to work. It’s a rule that deals only with how human beings interact with one another, and there is no need to invite a supernatural element to it. Treat me kindly and I’ll do the same; that’s it.

In fact, you’ll find our entire society is built on the premise that human beings have a responsibility to act in the best interest of their fellow man. When you harm, steal, or kill someone else, you will be punished by people, not by a sky God. For a long time we have realized the only way to have an orderly society is by taking matters in our own hands. We’re not waiting for God to punish the guilty. We handle that ourselves.

All laws are man-made. They are designed by humans, for humans. When drafting any new law, we look at the impact it will have on people; not how a mysterious sky God will react. Long ago, before there was any real orderly structure of society, religion was one of the few ways to keep people lawful. But because clergymen are above reproach, abuses were inevitable (can you say Inquisition?). Western society only became modern when we wrestled these responsibilities away from individuals who could not be held accountable, or who claimed divine providence.

I would rather place my trust in other human beings than in a God who answers to no one. If ‘He’ decreed all Canaanites must die, there isn’t a lot of room for debate, and that in itself is fairly frightening. Christians may wonder how we can be moral without God, but I ask you this: how can you be moral when you can’t even understand how he operates (don’t you always say he works in mysterious ways)? Let me put this another way for anyone who claims the Bible is the infallible word of God: since you obviously pick and choose what you think God wants you to do (see above quotes), how can you be sure you picked the right rules to follow?

I’d rather trust in the inherent goodness of people than some tome of highly dubious origins. Why should we entrust our morality to a book that was written during a time when genocide, war, murder, and slavery wasn’t a big deal?

The Real Dangers of Racism, Bigotry and Hatred

Posted on by

I’ve been a little obsessed with the media lately. I really can’t help myself in the light of Dr. George Tiller’s death. It was only after his murder I had an opportunity to see the full scope of the religious right’s campaign against him. The carefully worded press releases all publicly condemn the act, but it’s no surprise the majority of them are in fact quite pleased at Tiller’s death.

I’ve begun to realize the seriousness of their rhetoric, and the unsubtle messages that many religious leaders are implanting in their congregation. Take Pastor Wiley Drake as a perfect example: he recently stated unless Obama reverses his policy on abortion, he is actively praying for God to kill him. He also has this to say on Tiller’s murder:

I’ve been a Baptist pastor for a long time, been in the pro-life fight, been face-to-face with Tiller, told him about Jesus, and I’ve seen many, many others tell him about Jesus over and over and over again. And I’ve seen horrific things that go on in those death obituaries — and that’s what they are — and so my initial response to those people, they said, ‘Well what was your response,’ and I said, ‘Well, in all honesty I have to just respond directly and say I am glad that he’s dead.

Drake shows his true colors by calling Obama a ‘secret Muslim’, accusing him of being a usurper, and not a real American. Drake is sending a message: if someone kills him, they will be doing God’s work. How else can you explain his reaction to Tiller’s murder. Yep, like all good Christians, Drake prays for those he hates to be sent to hell, hopefully sooner than later.

In most other countries, this type of hate speech would not be swept under the carpet. Enticing others to violence is not free speech issue, especially when the people doing this have such a high profile. This man has a large following who listen to everything he says. Drake and his ilk are extremely dangerous, and if you underestimate the risk of allowing this kind of hate speech to continue, you may realize too late what the consequences are.

Tired Christian claim #1: atheism is a religion

Posted on by

I thought I might slowly start making a list of tired claims Christians perpetually make about us atheists. Think of it as a huge FAQ that helps you answer some annoying claims people make about atheism without actually understanding it.

First off, you might have heard this gem floating around; atheism is some kind of religion, since not believing in god is a type of faith. For instance, if I claim life arose from non-life, my inability to absolutely prove this statement is comparable to the belief that an all powerful being willed it into existence.

What is so interesting about this tired Christian claim is it essentially compares all beliefs to a religion; if I believe the Earth revolves around the sun but have never witnessed this event, I am apparently accepting this based entirely on faith.

It sounds almost plausible; after all, not all of us have studied evolution, but most of us would agree it’s nevertheless true. Is this a type of faith? Faith is a misleading word. We tend to confuse the word with belief, even though the two are not necessarily equal. Faith can more easily be understood if we think of the word ‘trust’. Christians trust that their God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and OmniBenevolent. They may trust this for multiple reasons. Most grow up being told this is true by people in authority, and many also come to trust that the Bible is the infallible word of God. This type of trust does not require anything more than willful surrender of one’s critical faculties, even in the face of glaring contradictory or improbable elements (like a virgin birth, or a resurrection).

Strangely enough, I have never met a Christian who thought there was any real evidence that contradicted them. Once a person commits to a rigid way of thinking (like the belief the Bible is infallible), they will find whatever evidence, no matter how flimsy, to support their predetermined conclusions. This is called ‘confirmation bias’. No matter how strong your evidence may be their claims are untrue, it will either be ignored or attacked. How many Christians ignore the fact human beings share 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees, or outright claim such testing fails to prove we share a common ancestor? They would rather believe God designed us to be different from other animals; that we are special somehow. As far as they are concerned, they know the truth, and it is we who are blind.

Now as an atheist I too trust information given to me by people of authority. The difference, of course, lies in the methodology of how such information is gathered, and the degree of scrutiny I can apply to it. Yes, I trust evolution is true, but unlike most of the improvable claims of religion, scientific theories are constantly being revised. Any individual is free to analyze and even disprove them. Science is a process of refinement; our understanding of the universe is strengthened because scientific theories are corroborative efforts made by independent thinkers. We have been able to uncover many of the secrets of nature from the simple process of observation, hypothesis, and testing. As you can see, this is not a process that involves dogma. Over time, even the most cherished theories will collapse if they are shown to be incomplete or wrong.

For the most part, the vast majority of us do not blindly trust others without at least some proof. If I’m trying to sell you a flying car, you’ll no doubt want to take it for a test drive before buying it. We rarely take anyone’s ‘word’ for it, because we know blindly trusting others is a bad idea. Trust has to be earned, not given. The same should be true about what we believe, and who we chose to believe. If the methods of arriving at a conclusion are shrouded in mystery (the whole God in the gap argument comes to mind), we haven’t gained any real knowledge, and we would be wise not to blindly trust any belief that demands the surrender of our critical faculties. Being an atheist doesn’t require me to believe in anything without evidence. Can any Christian truly make the same claim?

This guy thinks atheists are “childish”

Posted on by

Here’s a new argument: we are apparently too silly, and don’t take atheism seriously enough. So, in a nutshell, atheists are both way too uptight according to some, and too frivolous according to others. Have any of these clergymen speaking on atheism spent more than 15 seconds talking to one? Barron is calling us childish and ‘frivolous’ for the ad campaign started by a few organizations in the US, Canada, and Britain. I wasn’t a big fan of them initially, but seeing as these are pissing off Christians, I can’t help but feel they are succeeding.

I’m not going to go into too much name-calling here, since there really is no point. Barron is convinced his religion, Christianity, is somehow much more serious than atheism. I agree. It’s deadly serious. When you take the stories of Noah, Lot, Job, and Abraham at their word, you must invariably conclude Yahweh is not someone you fuck around with. If God was real, I would be worried. Luckily, he isn’t.

Father Barron, I don’t want to insult you, but what makes you believe your claims are less childish than the reasonable stance that the evidence for God is non-existent? The Bible, perhaps? Weak. You may find comfort and even some eloquence in that book, but you cannot suddenly forget this same tome condones slavery, genocide, and incest. Anyone who is neutral on the subject of religion will tell you that when read front to back, the Bible reveals itself to be a disturbing book filled with conflict, terrible deeds, and chilling callousness on the part of this God figure.

Notice the entire time this guy doesn’t even defend the Christian notion of God? Hey Father, you’re making more than a simple claim he exists. You’re also claiming that hundreds of other religions are wrong, and your interpretation is right. You are, in essence, trying to prove two things at once. Even if atheism was wrong, I highly doubt your Jewish God is right. No offense.

Religiosity doesn’t influence abortion rates

Posted on by

If you’ve ever wondered just why the religious right hates abortion so much, maybe this new study published in LiveScience can shed some light. According to the June issue of The Journal of Health and Social Behavior, young unmarried women graduating from private religious schools are actually more likely to get abortions than their secular counterparts.

This study isn’t really all that surprising. Women going to religious private schools are more likely to engage in risky sex, having lacked the proper sexual education needed to make adult decisions about contraception. Rather than learning about condoms, the pill, or the myriad products available that allow humans the opportunity to carefully control their reproductive systems, these girls get the laughable ‘education’ that waiting until marriage is the best way to avoid pregnancies.  Because the religious right basically absconds from their duty of teaching women about all of their options, a large number of them will have no other choice than to terminate their unwanted pregnancies. If you hate abortion so much guys, you might want to take another look at your sexual education policy. Clearly, it’s making the problem worse.

I suspect this study will simply be ignored; after all, it’s not as though religions have a good track record of listening to reality. They would much rather live in their little insular bubbles where good Christians girls still have virtue, still wait until marriage to have sex, and spend their lives barefoot and preggers. It doesn’t matter that this is an obvious lie. It’s a comforting one, and that’s all they need.