When God loses an election II: Nevada & Delaware

We already talked about Brazil and its liberal candidate winning despite Ratzinger’s opposition. Today we have something similar: US congress elections.


In this race there were two candidates that were playing the “God” card. Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, both of them babbling bigotry and nonsense inspired in their belief in loving celestial father. Fortunately, both of them lost the election.

In Nevada, Sharron Angle, the Tea Party-endorsed Republican candidate lost to Harry Reid. This is very interesting, considering that Angle, when asked why she entered the race, she said that "the reason is a calling."

"When God calls you he also equips you and He doesn't just say, 'Well today you're going to run against Harry Reid,'" the tea party favorite said.

It seems that God doesn’t have the power to support the candidates He endorses. That, or Ms. Angle is just deluded and is hearing voices in her head, which apparently, happens to many of those who say God talks to them.

But there is more. Angle also stated that if a woman was raped, it’s because God wanted it and she shouldn’t have an abortion. Furthermore, she stated that a pregnancy after a rape is similar to having lemons and therefore, the opportunity to make lemonade.

She also supports the right of religious leaders making political endorsements and, of course, opposes gay marriage.

Lovely woman, isn’t her? The typical arrogant fundamentalist who thinks he or she can understand the will of a supernatural being whose existence they can’t prove, and use that “understanding” to further a conservative agenda. Now, after losing, she shuns the media, aparently protecting her ego from being reminded that, well, she lost.


So that was Ms. Angle losing in Nevada. But there was also O’Donnell losing in Delaware. While I didn’t pay much attention to O’Donnell it’s not that I didn’t have material for doing so. First of all, let’s go back in time and remember her views on… well, “self-pleasure”



First of all, you know that when “Savior” and ‘Truth are together in a sentence or phrase, we are approaching a huge pile of manure. This is no exception. “God says…”, “The Bible says…”, “God’s appropriate context”, “pure hearts, not adulterous hearts”, and “lust is committing adultery”. Seriously, not even my grandma, I think. But well, if she wants to have a traumatized sexual life, it’s her problem.

Now, her stupidity was confirmed when she failed to understand evolution:


O’Donnell: ‘Why Aren’t Monkeys Still Evolving Into Humans?’

O’DONNELL: You know what, evolution is a myth. And even Darwin himself –

MAHER: Evolution is a myth?!? Have you ever looked at a monkey!

O’DONNELL: Well then, why they — why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?

A real idiot, isn't her? But well, the US constitution gives its people the freedom to be idiots. But when she tries to run for office and represent a group of people with views like these…

Christine O'Donnell: Homosexuality an 'Identity Disorder'

Delaware GOP Senate Candidate Struggles to Portray Mainstream Image on Sexual Values

"People are created in God's image. Homosexuality is an identity adopted through societal factors. It's an identity disorder," she told Wilmington News Journal reporter Victor Greto.

... then we know we are talking about a bigoted person who uses her nonsensical beliefs to support her bigotry. Especially when…

Homosexuality has been considered a normal variation of human sexuality for nearly four decades. The American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association both declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in the early 1970s.

But I think, her biggest "jackass" has been her relationship with witchcraft and how hard she tried to deny it. She even made an ad addressing the issue, which was needed because her voter base were certainly aren't tolerant people who don't care about the candidates beliefs.

These are the people who run with a self-proclaimed endorsement from God. Arrogant, callous, deluded, bigoted, manipulative, ignorant, and proud of such ignorance. While this election has been big for conservatives in general, I am please to see these fundamentalists bite the dust. Hopefully one day we won’t even will have to hear about them.

One nation, indivisible

Today I became a U.S. Citizen.

I certainly don't feel the common attachment to my original nationality, given that nationalism seems very irrational to me, considering people take pride on something they didn't do anything to get, which is, being born in some specific part of the world. Yeah, kind of like religion.

Getting my citizenship is more a practical thing. Since the United States have been my home for the last 5 years and will be for many more, it just seems logical to get my nationality. Also, if I'll be living here, I would like to influence in its public policy, even if it is just by voting. I certainly will vote.



Yes, Democrat. I don't abhor the free market economy, but I won't be voting republican, at least not until they stop having candidates who can't tell the age of the Earth correctly.

The ceremony was pretty long, I think the judge arrived late. But it was worthy especially for the moment of the pledge of allegiance. The man who lead us to say it did it like this:

I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all.

I was thrilled. I had a big smile in my face and in the end went looking for that guy. I had to thank him for that.

Anyway, today you can count another American Atheist.

Cuando “líder conservador” significa “atorrante al que el sufrimiento ajena le importa un comino"

Hace unos días se reportó el caso de una pareja que había estado burlándose de una niña de 7 años con una enfermedad terminal. Luego de que esto saliese a la luz, la pareja fue amenazada y su casa vandalizada en aparente solidaridad con el sufrimiento de la niña.

La forma en que se mostró el descontento ante el comportamiento de esta pareja puede no haber sido el mejor, pero es obvia la indignación ante un comportamiento tan inhumano. Uno pensaría que la gente normal tiende a sentir simpatía ante el sufrimiento de los más débiles.

Ahora consideremos que en los últimos días cinco adolescentes homosexuales se suicidaron luego de varios días de maltrato por parte de sus compañeros. Si bien los roces entre estudiantes son parte de la vida adolescente, un suicidio debido a esto significa que este maltrato se llevó demasiado lejos y a nadie pareció importarle. Uno pensaría que alguien que pretender ser un líder decente tendría algo de simpatía por este caso.

Pero en los Estados Unidos, los líderes conservadores no son esas personas.

DeMint habla sobre temas conservadores en reunión en iglesia de Spartanburg


El Senador DeMint dijo que si alguien es abiertamente homosexual, no debería enseñar en una escuela, al igual que una mujer soltera que convive con su pareja, tampoco debería enseñar en un salón de clase.

“(Cuando dije esas cosas) nadie salió en mi defensa” dijo. “Pero todos vino y me dijo por lo bajo que no debería disculparme. Ellos no quieren que el gobierno les quite sus derechos a la libertad de religión.

Así que, sin importar que varios adolescentes se hayan suicidado luego de largo tiempo de maltrato, aun hay quienes animan a sus seguidores a tener ideas que discriminan a los homosexuales, solo por serlo (y de paso, a las mujeres).

Más aun, cita el derecho a la “libertad religiosa”, como si esa fuera razón suficiente para mostrar intolerancia hacia un grupo de personas.

Me siento tentado a pensar que sí lo es. El cristianismo a dejado bien claro que el odiar a los homosexuales no es incorrecto, lo cual se encuentra en la biblia (aunque Jesucristo nunca dijese nada al respecto), y que juzgarlos, castigarlos y discrminarlos no está mal si es que es hecho en contra de alguien a quien Dios personalmente aborrece.



Pero este no es el único. David Barton, un ministro evangélico cristianoy activista republicano propuso “regular la homosexualidad” diciendo:

Si voy al Centro para Control de las Enfermedades y estoy preocupado por la salud, encuentro datos interesantes ahí y estos me pueden indicar qué hacer respecto al bienestar.

Los individuos homosexuales y bisexuales son siete veces más propensos a pensar en, o cometer suicidio. Ooooh, eso no suena muy saludable.

Los homosexuales mueren décadas antes que los heterosexuales. Eso no suena muy saludable.

Casi la mitad de homosexuales activos admite haber tenido 500 o más parejas sexuales y casi un tercio admite el haber tenido 1000 parejas sexuales en su vida.

Estas personas están tan llenas de odio que no consideran el que los homosexuales se suiciden debido al sufrimiento que les infligen aquellos con las mismas posturas intolerantes que ellos. En su estúpido razonar, los homosexuales merecen ser relegados y discriminados, y si se sienten mal por ello, es su culpa.

Estos dos salieron luego de los suicidios. Ya antes teníamos a Christine O'Donnell, candidata al congreso por Delaware, quien dice que la homosexualidad es una enfermedad; o Sharron Angle, candidata por Nevada, quien sostiene que los homosexuales no deben adoptar niños (a pesar que la Asociación Psicológica de Estados Unidos diga lo contrario)

Y también tenemos a Focus on the Family (la organización del Dr. Dobson) que dice que los programas en contra del maltrato en las escuelas son una forma de llevar a cabo los planes homosexuales. Lo que obviamente este grupo busca es que el maltrato sistemático a los homosexuales no sea visto como algo malo. Algo despreciable, por todos lados.

Es por esto que no puedo apoyar al partido republicano en Estados Unidos. Si bien sus ideales económicos no me son del todo repulsivos (en cierta forma, me agrada el libre comercio), sus posturas sociales son totalmente despreciables. Los republicanos y conservadores en general tienden a lanzar la razón y tolerancia por la ventana para así poder perpetuar sus posturas tradicionales a pesar de que estas causen dolor a otros. Tal vez es lo que Jesús haría.

Por otro lado, esto es lo que la gente consciente y que se preocupa por otros hace



Jesse Tyler Ferguson y Eric Stonestreet son dos actores que hacen de pareja gay en la serie “Modern Family” de ABC. Ferguson explica que cuando era adolescente, tuvo que cambiarse de escuela debido a lo mucho que lo molestaban por ser homosexual, y que actualmente está alcanzando el éxito, a lo cual Stonestreet añade que hay lugares para ayuda. Ambos se preocupan por el dolor que se causa a adolescentes distintos, dolor muchas veces basado simplemente en creencias antiguas.

Otras que (increíblemente) apoyan los derechos de los homosexuales son Cindy y Meghan McCain, esposa e hija de John McCain respectivamente. ¿Quién lo habría pensado? Si ellas pueden entender que los homosexuales son tan humanos como cualquier otro, entonces creo que aun hay esperanza para este mundo.

Finalmente, fotos de Meghan McCain, porque está buenísima.

When “conservative leader” means “callous asshole who doesn’t care about others”

A couple of days ago was reported a case in which a couple who had been making fun of a 7 year-old girl with a deadly disease, had been harassed and threatened, in solidarity with the girl’s family.

The way people showed their discontent with the couple’s action may bot have been the best, but the support for the suffering child is obvious. You would think that normal people tend to have that sympathy for those who suffer, right?

Well, now consider that in the last days, five gays have killed themselves because of bullying. While bullying is actually part of most teenager’s life, a suicide means that it has gone too far. You would think that normal people would feel empathy and speak against it, or at least, say nothing.

But conservative leaders are not such people.

DeMint addresses conservative issues at Spartanburg church rally

[Senator] DeMint said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn't be in the classroom.

“(When I said those things,) no one came to my defense,” he said. “But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion.”

So, regardless of gay teenagers killing themselves after suffering bullying, there are still those who will encourage his followers to discriminate gays, just for being gays (women in the way, too).

Moreover, he cites his right to “freedom of religion”, as if that were a reason to hate someone else.

I am tempted to think it is. Christianity has made it very clear that hatred against gays is not wrong, that it is actually in the bible (even though Jesus never said anything about it) and that judgment, punishment and discrimination are not wrong if it is against something God supposedly also hates.

But he is not the only one. David Barton, an evangelical Christian minister and Republican political activist proposed “regulating homosexuality” by saying…

So if I got to the Centers for Disease Control and I'm concerned about health, I find some interesting stats there and this should tell me something about health.

Homosexual/bi-sexual individuals are seven times more likely to contemplate or commit suicide. Oooh, that doesn't sound very healthy.

Homosexuals die decades earlier than heterosexuals. That doesn't sound healthy.

Nearly one-half of practicing homosexuals admit to 500 or more sex partners and nearly one-third admit to a thousand or more sex partners in a lifetime.

These people are so hateful they would not consider that these gays killed themselves after a long time of suffering, caused by bigots, just like themselves. In their idiotic mind, gays deserve to be shunned and harassed and if they feel bad about it, it’s their own fault.

These two came after the gays suicides. We also have Christine O’Donnell, candidate for Delaware, stating that Homosexuality is an identity disorder, or Sharron Angle, a congress candidate for Nevada, say that gays should not adopt children (even though the American Psychological Association find no problem in that).

Last but not least, is Focus on the Family, which states that School Anti-bullying programs push a gay agenda. If what this group seeks isn't the unpunished harassing of gay teenagers, I don't know what they seek.

All these people base their hateful views on their Christian faith.

This is why I cannot support the Republican Party in the US. While their economic views are not totally repulsive to me, their stand on social issues is repulsive and despicable. Republicans and social conservatives tend to throw reason and tolerance throw the window in order to keep their dogmas in power. Maybe that’s what Jesus do.

On the other hand, this is what caring people do:



Jesse Tyler Ferguson and Eric Stonestreet play a gay couple in ABC's comedy "Modern Family". Ferguson is gay, but Eric not. Yet, they both understand how painful it might be to be gay in a society that hates them, in many cases, for no more reason than ancient beliefs.

Others who (unexpectedly) also support gays' rights, are Cindy and Megan McCain, wife and daughter of John McCain. Who would have thought so, right? If these two can understand that gays are as much of humans as everyone else, then I think there is still hope for the world.

Finally, pictures of Meghan McCain. Because she is hot.

The “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy and the “US vs Them” dilemma

Actually, it should be called “The 2-blocks-from-Ground-Zero Not-exactly-a-Mosque” controversy. But if that were the case, there might be no as much controversy as there is right now.

The “Ground Zero Mosque” topic is right now the hot one on the news. Which is no surprise after the 9/11 attacks. To many, the building of a Mosque in/near the place in which many died because deranged Muslim fundamentalist killed thousands of people is a slap in the face to the American people.



Of course, by “American people” those who oppose the construction of the Mosque mean “non-muslim American people”.

It’s very easy to feel alienated against a minority group, especially if this group believes the same thing than those who killed so many people. However, it’s necessary to recognize that the Muslims that want to build this Islamic Center (that’s what it’s called) are not the same kind of people who flew planes into the towers. Yes, I know, they believe the same thing, the same nonsensical story very near to a Greek myth. But they are not willing to kill for it. At least they haven’t shown that.

According to The Economist

Cordoba House is not being built by al-Qaeda. To the contrary, it is the brainchild of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a well-meaning American cleric who has spent years trying to promote interfaith understanding, not an apostle of religious war like Osama bin Laden. He is modeling his project on New York’s 92nd Street Y, a Jewish community centre that reaches out to other religions.

Doesn't sound so bad. Even though he puts some responsibility on the West for the 9/11 attacks (I say "bullshit", but let's put that aside), an interfaith understanding is much better than to have a faith-based everyone-against-everyone.

Also, let's not forget that the ones who are going to benefit from it are Americans, muslim Americans, yes. Not al-qaeda jihadists. So, even if I dislike the construction of a religious place (which I do), I support it.

The US constitution provides freedom of religion to everyone, as much as it states a separation of church and state. If we are going to work with that "Wall of Separation" in mind, it's only consequent to protect freedom of religion. So that, in the future, Wiccans, Baha'is and other religions (less obnoxious, let's hope) can also worship in the way they want (without messing with others, let's hope)

Of course, not everyone understands it the same way. Notorious American moron Sarah Palin stated:

"Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.”

What the fuck does "refudiate" means? This woman has no idea how to use the English language, yet, she feels like she can interfere with other American's rights? Is this the person so many people wanted as Vice-president?

Anyway, Palin didn't like the idea of the (not a) Mosque (near, not in) Ground Zero. Pretty predictable. As much as average Americans shouldn't be victims of the rage caused by the American government, average American muslims shouldn't be a victim and see their rights shortened, by the rage caused by religious extremists.

If you still think that the "Mosque" is un-American, or an insult to the American people, compare it to going against the First Amendment of the Constitution. What do you think is more "un-American"?

Finally, what pisses me off the most about this issue is to have to speak out in favor of a religious group. It's certainly easier to put them all in the same bag and call them all "terrorists". But it wouldn't be the intelligent thing to do.



She is also a Muslim. Never forget that.

California says NO to bigotry, intolerance, and h8. Teh Gay can marry

Well, not exactly. It's not "California" meaning "the people of California" but actually a judge declaring that Proposition 8, which prohibited gays of getting married, unconstitutional

Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California



In a long-awaited ruling, Judge Vaughn Walker says the ban on same-sex marriage violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. The decision is expected to reach the Supreme Court.

To most rational people, it's pretty obvious that Proposition 8 and any law that takes away rights from a certain group of people violates equal protection and due process. In fact, it violates equality, a value that has had to be fought and defended through the years, whether we are talking about natives, blacks, latinos or Japaneses.

Walker cited extensive trial evidence to support his finding that there was not even a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. Higher courts defer to trial judges on issues of fact, but still could determine that Walker was wrong on the law.

Here I want to emphasize the "rational basis" part. Exactly, there is nothing rational about denying gays (or any other human groups) the same rights others enjoy. The only basis under such position is takes is irrational. And, yes, I'm talking in great part about religion.

What? you thought this had nothing to do with religion? Even with the Mormons backing up Prop 8 from the beginning? Even with the religious right always portraying gays, in the best of cases, as sick people, and in the worst, as demon possessed? Come on, someone needs to point this out. Most politically-correct liberals will try to avoid touch the religion string, fearing being called "intolerant of others beliefs". Well, that's one reason so many people regard liberals as pussies.

Well, going back to the issue. Since there is no rational basis to oppose gay marriage, there should be rational basis to approve, right? Well, according to the American Psychological Association:

There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage.

This is the conclusion of a document used in courts and issued by the APA. If you want, you can read the whole document, which is written in an English easy enough for the average person to understand. Of course, bigotry and intolerance makes it more difficult to understand these documents more than any flaw in the educational system or a bad English an immigrant could have.


If you don't want to look through the whole document, you can check the APA section on Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.

Be warned, what you will read is something you will likely hear from most liberals. Conservatives (I mean, social conservatives, a.k.a. Christian Right) will dismiss that saying that it's just liberals talking. Even if it's coming from the most prestigious association of psychologists, this is, scientists who have made all the research possible on the issue before making a statement.

But, when has it been a problem for conservatives to dismiss scientific knowledge when it goes against their own faith-based bigotry?

Now, there is another issue that bigo... I mean, Prop 8 supporters are making the case about. Prop 8 was put in the ballot some time ago, meaning that the people could choose whether to approve it or not. By declaring it unconstitutional, the judge is dismissing the 7 million votes that were in favor of Prop 8.

That seems to be a big problem in the US, the idea that "Teh govament" is taking away "the people's rights", in this casse, by forsaking the opinion of a big chunk of the Californian population.

The problem is that here we have the opinion of a lot of people against what scientists say is normal. You see the difference? Those who oppose gay marriage are either ignorant about what science says about it, or even knowing it, they cling to their bigotry, again, in many cases supported by religious ideas. In other words, we either have ignorant or stupid people voting against it.

I praise the fact that a judge had the bravery to oppose them and say that "according to the evidence, THIS is right and this is what should be done".

That's why I support atheism. Because it uses science as its main weapon, and thanks to scientific advancement we can actually know about ourselves, about humanity and then take the steps necessary to make this a better world.

Here a short video from CNN:



So, yeah, as you heard, this is going to be appealed. The war for equality is not over. Finalmente, y por si queda alguien que quiera argumentar que la homosexualidad es inmoral según la biblia, pues este video explica lo que realmente es "moral" según la biblia.

A call from God? No, Mrs. Angle, that's called schizophrenia

Why, republicans, why? Why is it so hard to make politics in a clear, intelligent way, instead to appeal to the religious retards who will follow anything that has the label "God" in it?

Sharron Angle says her race against Harry Reid is a calling from God

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Republican Sharron Angle says her campaign to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada is "a calling" from God and that her faith is helping her endure a fiercely competitive race in which Democrats have depicted her as a conservative extremist.

"When you have God in your life ... he directs your path," Angle told the Christian Broadcasting Network in an interview posted on its website Wednesday.

Asked why she entered the race, Angle said "the reason is a calling."

"When God calls you he also equips you and He doesn't just say, 'Well today you're going to run against Harry Reid,'" the tea party favorite said.

This is not a political blog and yet, I've written three times about this woman. A calling for God? Is she crazy? What does that mean? That God spoke to her, like, in a dream? This is either serious schizophrenia or just pure arrogance that pushes Angle to say she is little less than "the chosen one".

Since this is a blog about religion, I try to keep it separated from political shenanigans. Unfortunately religion has a lot to do with politics as it serves as a way to control those religious enough to love being sheep under a so-called shepherd. While I consider myself a liberal, this is mostly related to social issues (gay rights, abortion, etc). Economic policy is something I might agree with the right. However, it's hard to feel akin to a party whose candidates will go as far as declaring they are "in God's side".

How easy would it be for the liberals to also say "Jesus would help the poor", "Jesus wouldn't be at war" or stuff like that? I would be dick move, but might work. I would hate it, of course. It would be to appeal to those who can't think for themselves and prefer to mindlessly follow a shepherd.

If Angle wins she will be little less than those crazy Muslim leaders who do whatever they see fit "in the name of Allah"

Angle, a Southern Baptist, has called herself a faith-based politician who prays daily. Among her positions, she opposes abortion in all circumstances, including rape and incest.

Really? Well, the nutjobs who flew the planes towards the Twin Towers were also "faith based". As for abortion and rape, well, we already know her stances. That is where a true christian stands, right? Nice, very, very nice. So full of love and comprehension. What a joke.

Here, check the video. Try not to puke in your mouth

Crimes are wrong... unless they are made in the name of God, right?

Don't you love it when you get to see mainstream Christian's true colors? Don't you feel good to see that those who brag about loving the neighbor are just as, or even more bigoted than the average person? Isn't it reassuring that we are in the right path?

So, some days ago, this billboard was put up:



Pretty nice, I have to say. An excerpt from the Pledge of Allegiance before the "Under God" was added during the 50s. Very harmless, also, much less than the original ad that inspired the campaign.

Of course, this won't please Christians or other believers. It's not designed to do that. But I think that no matter how displeasing something is, I don't have the right to deface it or vandalize it, just because I don't like. Apparently someone doesn't think the same. After a few days, the billboard looked like this:



Very nice. So, if you don't like what it says, just scrawl something on it, it will make the message right. Because, well, God will be pleased that someone is committing crimes to defend Him from those who don't believe in it.

Now, someone could argue that such reasoning is just something I made up in my "atheist mind" to bad mouth "real christians". I'm sorry to tell you, but, no.

First came the nutjobs from the Institute of Creation Research:

While vandalism should not be condoned, these recent events shed light on what some Americans will do when they feel that their freedom of speech is threatened. An atheist spokesman in North Carolina said their message is needed to “let people know we exist and that there’s a community here.”

Yet he failed to mention the concerted effort of atheist groups to stop religious Americans from freely exercising their religion. Not content with having the freedom themselves to worship or not as they see fit, militant atheists increasingly seek to shackle the beliefs of their fellow citizens through their own distorted interpretation of “separation of church and state.”

It is perhaps not surprising that some of those fellow citizens object.

So, what we have is a "yes but no" attitude that puts the blame on atheists for making efforts in speaking up. Maybe we should just stay at home and not speak of our non-belief. If we were to follow that reasoning, then I think we can go to that creationist museum and burn it down. Or go to someone who says evolution is not real and kick the crap out of him, because, well, he was asking for it.

But I'm not like that. Maybe the creationists, in their belief that their god created everything, and that such belief must be imposed by reason or force, will do it.

But there is more. Remember Mike Huckabee? The pastor who was running for president and won the republican (what else?) primaries in the redneck states? Well, this is what he said:

If people want to spend their money to tell everyone they don’t believe in God, the joy, beauty, and incredible greatness of America is that we let them do it and don’t shoot them for it… What I would hope is that people who believe, as I do, in the power of Jesus Christ like I do would put 10 billboards for every one like that.

Would it have been to fucking hard to say the vandalism shouldn't have happened? Wouldn't it have been gentlemanly to say so, even if one doesn't think so? Does this fucktard needs so desperately to appeal to his followers that he just passes the issue away and instead, hopes for something that already happens? Because, go along the road (especially in the South) and you will see much more church billboards and Jesus billboards, not to mention those put on the side of trucks.

And finally, from World Nut Daily, a columnist praises the vandalism saying it is her kind of vandalism:

Never would I encourage vandalism, but in this case I think I'll let it slide. Atheists have been vandalizing my beliefs for years, so it's about time the shoe was on the other foot. When asked about the vandalism, William Warren, the spokesman for Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics, said, "It was done by one or two people off on their own who decided their only recourse was vandalism rather than having a conversation." Hmm. That's interesting, because the Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics felt its only recourse was to deliberately insult those who understand the importance of "Under God."

So, and excerpt from the Pledge of Allegiance is insulting? Is this girl serious? Really, you can recite the Pledge as much as you want, but to tell others how to do it by vandalizing a piece of freedom of speech is just overstepping boundaries. If you want, go put your own billboard, with "Under God" in big letters. But do you really want to vandalize it?

I don't know if would be capable to just "let it slip" if I saw someone who supported this kind of vandalism being beaten or raped. I think I appreciate humanity too much to do that without, at least, being outraged.

However, Christians, mainstream christians, christians who have lots of followers and who brag about their being so righteous would. Thank you guys. Thank you for making us non-believers understand that as much as others thing we are assholes, we can't get to your God-inspired assholery.

Thanks to the Friendly Atheist, who have been following the case.

The Texas Education Chainsaw Massacre

Remember that movie in which a group of cannibals killed a group of friends who were around? Well, nowadays we have our own massacre in Texas. This time, the victims were the textbooks to be used in schools, and the cannibals that slashed them, the members of the Texas Board of Education.

Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change

After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

In other words:
1. Capitalism is great, Amurricah is numbah 1!!!
2. The Founding fathers had no intention of making this a country with religious freedom
3. They were also republicans, the same kind of republicans we have today kissing big businesses asses and screwing the poor

I won’t say much about 1 and 3 (even though I should, but I’m pretty sure there are many out there who will do it better than me). But number 2 is important and must be addressed.

First of all, why is Texas so important when it comes to education and textbooks?

The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks.

Which means that the editors will do what they need to do to sell to the biggest buyer. And the rest? Well, fuck the rest, Texas is bigger.

And also, more stupid:

In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.

First of all, it’s not a great idea to elect the board of education. When it comes to education, those who should be in charge are educators, the highest of the highest, meaning scientists, psychologists, mathematicians, linguists, etc. Not random guys that will represent the people. When it comes to policies it’s nice to represent the people, actually, it’s the best we have. But when it comes to education, people just don’t know. As a whole, they don’t know. Especially when these people will prefer to believe their favorite myth book than actual science.

This also apply when those nutjobs don’t want their bibles out of the state-given education:

“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”

I just found it, in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No establishment of religion, as simple as that. If the founding father had meant this to be a “christian nation” the first amendment would have read something like this:

“The Congress of the United States of America, by the power given by the Almighty God and His Only Son Jesus Christ establishes that our country in God will not prohibit free exercise of religion as meant to honor our dear Lord; will not abridge the freedom of speech, as our Lord has given us the power to speak out, or of the press, or of the people to assemble, especially in order to pray to our Lord or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

Remember that at that time there was no ACLU, or American Atheists, or Freedom From Religion Foundation, or U.N. If they had wanted to make of this a Christian Nation no one would have stopped them. But they didn’t. They clearly wrote down “No establishment of religion”. Is it that hard to understand?

Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”

It was defeated on a party-line vote.

After the vote, Ms. Knight said, “The social conservatives have perverted accurate history to fulfill their own agenda.”

Is it that bad that the government has a neutral stand regarding to religion, giving to all of them the same rights, in other words, giving equality to them?

To the normal mind, no. But to the religious zealots who are in power (and this also applies to the catholic church) it’s very important to keep the power, even if that means inequality right in our faces.

That seems pretty un-American to me. Yet those conservatives are the ones that claim to be “patriotic” and “all American”.

I bet the conservatives would be up in arms and forming Tea Parties if the Democrats had cut out some historical figure. But that’s what the conservatives just did:

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

Oh come on. So these people just erase part of history, just erase part of a great idea so that their favorite myths book isn't displaced from education? What was I thinking when coming to this country and thinking I wound find a place in which knowledge and science and social liberties were cherished and respected? There is still so much work to do. Conservative ideas might have really good things to offer, but since they come usually entangled with such unscientific views and hypocritical positions, it is just hard to take them seriously.

Finally, Professor Eugenie Scott explains how Creationism is still crazy after all these years. Also she explains what is the position scientists have regarding this issue. She also talks about the influence Texas has.

Anti-gay Republican Catholic senator arrested. Drunk. After leaving gay bar

That is the kind of headline I love to see. It just shows how much of a hypocrite these people are. They legislate against rights for homosexuals, usually under the assumption that their lifestyle is wrong and unmoral, only to be found doing the same.

Just like evangelical Ted Hagard

Just like congressman Mark Sanford

Or congressman Mark Foley.

Or congressman Larry Craig

Another one bites the dust. Another republican, social conservative, pro-traditional family (meaning, anti-gay), god-fearing, values champion bites the dust.

Anti-gay Senator Roy Ashburn arrested for drunk driving after leaving gay club


Police in California report State Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-Calif.) was arrested early Wednesday morning for drunk driving. Cops say Ashburn was pulled over after leaving the popular Sacramento gay nightclub, Faces.


A police report also indicates Ashburn, a fierce competitor of gay rights who stands staunchly against gay marriage, was stopped with an unidentified man in the passenger seat of his state-issued car.

I wonder what this guy was doing at such bar. Maybe praying for those gay souls? Trying to get voters? Conducting a study on gay life? Encouraging gays to give up something for lent? (by the way, this guy is catholic). What do you think?

The Retards War. Starring: The former governor of Alaska

This isn't a blog about politics. But when it comes to Sarah Palin, politics and religion usually come together. Her position regarding creationism, the "protection from witches", supposed permission from God to invade Irak, and other positions akin to fundamentalist Cristians prove so. Is that a problem? It becomes a problem when such unscientifical thinking is cheered and supported by lots of people.

So, first of all, what does Palin has to with retardedness?

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Sarah Palin Uses a Hand-O-Prompter
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

So, Palin has no problem with using the word "retard", right? Well, that's why I use it in this entry's title. And that's why we are going to use it a couple more times.

If I'm not mistaken, in a colloquial environment, "retard" is usually used as a synonym for a person with Down's syndrome. Which brings me to the next case.



So, neither Palin, nor her daughter, Bristol, liked the reference, since they thought it as an insult to Trigg, who does have Down's Syndrome.

I don't think that is the case. I think the reference is to Bristol. Because it does take a really retarded person to choose abstinence as a way or birth control, have sex, without a condom or any kind of contraceptive, and then, lobby in favor of abstinence. And it takes another retarded person to try to be presented as a "traditional values champion" when her own daughter is pregnant.

Palin must have thought "I will come out and defend all people with Down's Syndrome from this insult. I'm such a great person. I have a kid with Down's Syndrome, so that is enough to make a defender of such."

Well, think again. Andrea Fay Friedman, the woman who did the voice of the character with Down's Syndrome came out with a great response:

And when I watched on Channel 4, on “Extra,” and I saw Sarah Palin with her son Trig. I’m like, “I’m not Trig. This is my life.” I was making fun of Sarah Palin, but not her son. [...] It’s not really an insult. I was doing my role, I’m an actor. I’m entitled to say something. It was really funny. I was laughing at it. I had a nice time doing voiceover. It was my first time doing a voiceover, and I had fun.

So, Ms. Palin does not represent all people with Down's Syndrome. Here is one, maybe the most concerned, speaking and explaining what that joke really mean to a person with Down's Syndrome. Yes, it makes fun of her, but not of her son. Of course, being a victim of such an insult against her kids, her most beloved kid, is excelent when it comes to get support.

Think of it as a joke "sent by God". He works in "mysterious ways", you know.



Yeah, they are more retarded than Peter Griffin.

Another family values champion goes down the tube

Down went Mark Foley.

Down went Mark Sanford.

Down went Ted Haggard.

Down went these proud and pompous guys who loved to brag about family values and moral superiority.

Now another “family values champion” joins their shame and hypocrisy:

In July--two days after Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Republican leader Sam Blakeslee put Michael Duvall on the Rules Committee that oversees member ethics--the second-term, conservative, Republican assemblyman sat in a public hearing and vividly described lewd details about his trysts with a female lobbyist whose clients had business before another committee on which
 Duvall sits.


[…]

"She wears little eye-patch underwear," said Duvall, who is married with two children. "So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And
 so, we had made love Wednesday--a lot! And so she'll, she's all, 'I am going 
up and down the stairs, and you're dripping out of me!' So messy!"

And, yes, there is a video:



I don’t see any problem with eye-patch underwear, spanking or messy businesses. But I do see the problem when these actions are done with a woman who is not your wife and mother of your children. And I see an even bigger problem when they are done by a man who takes pride in his family values, brags about them and tries to intervene in others’ private life.

That has one name: Hypocrisy

What happened to the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye?