It comes in threes

Well, we had delicious irony yesterday. Now we have a bunch of men wearing dresses involved in a gay prostitution scandal (No, not queens, but the Vatican!). For comedy's sake, I wish to invoke the silly rule of threes, so I wonder what the next outragiously hypocritical thing will happen next?

Vatican chorister and usher in gay prostitution scandal
One of Pope Benedict's ceremonial ushers and a member of an elite choir in St Peter's Basilica have been implicated in a gay prostitution ring, in the latest sexual scandal to taint the Vatican.
Ghinedu Ehiem, a Nigerian, was dismissed by the Vatican from a prestigious choir after his name appeared in transcripts of police wiretaps.
In the wiretaps, Mr Eheim is allegedly heard negotiating over the procurement of male prostitutes.
The wiretaps were carried out in connection with a probe into corruption in contracts to build public works, including the planned venue in Sardinia of last year's G8 summit.
Among four people arrested last month in the corruption probe was Angelo Balducci, an engineer who is a board member of Italy's public works department and a construction consultant to the Vatican.
Balducci is also a member of an elite group called "Gentlemen of His Holiness" – ushers who are called to serve in the Vatican's Apostolic Palace on major occasions such as when the pope receives heads of state or presides at big events.
Balducci was arrested on corruption charges and the allegations of prostitution emerged only later.
Excerpts of the wiretaps and police documents published in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica showed that Ehiem, 40, had been in regular contact with Balducci before Balducci's arrest last month and the subject of their conversation was gay sex.
A police document prepared for magistrates and published in part by La Repubblica said Balducci was in contact with Ehiem and an Italian who were part of what the police called "an organised network ... to abet male prostitution".
It was not immediately possible to contact Ehiem's lawyer.
A Vatican source said Balducci, who is still in jail, has been dismissed from the elite group of ushers and that his name would not appear in the next edition of the Vatican's directory.
"He obviously can't come back here after being accused of these things," the source told Reuters.
The latest black eye for the Vatican comes on the heels of major paedophilia scandals involving the abuse of children by priests in Ireland, Germany and the United States.
Balducci's lawyer, Franco Coppi, one of Italy's highest profile lawyers, said he had no comment on the newest accusations against his client, saying: "We have much more serious things to be concerned with right now," referring to the corruption charges.

Jane Gilvary: It's Denigrating when Atheists Voice their Opinions

Just a quick copy paste about the blatant hypocrisy of the xtians in this country. For too long have they had their way, and now they are starting to realize that their brand of con-artistry can't stand up to the scrutiny of those who haven't been duped. I guess the first amendment only applies to them. From:

It's simultaneously depressing and amusing to see Christians blow a fuse over atheists doing little more than expressing an opinion and/or being public about what they think. One might get the impression that some Christians regard the public square -- and indeed the entire public realm -- as their own exclusive property. They certainly don't seem able to handle any sort of direct competition, disagreement, dissent, or criticism.

Case in point this time around is Jane Gilvary, a student at St. Joseph's University who is throwing a fit over the existence of a "Tree of Knowledge" erected in West Chester, PA, by the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia. As an alternative to traditional holiday displays, this "tree" is designed to promote the values of literacy, learning, and skepticism -- none of which seem to be accepted or appreciated by the complaining Christians. Jane Gilvary in particular regards it as little more than "denigrating" for Christians to have to deal with something other than a religious display this time of year. Jane Gilvary asks why the Tree of Knowledge is there and instead of asking the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, or citing any of their literature on the subject, quotes someone who just makes up nonsense out of thin air:

Colin Hanna, Founder of Let Freedom Ring and former Chester County Commissioner summates their motives quite nicely, "It's an agenda of hate and denigration, not a reverential celebration of any religious tradition. The Freethought Society is about attacking respectful Judeo-Christian traditions and nothing else."

Hanna sponsors the crèche each year on behalf of the Pennsylvania Pastors Network--a project of Let Freedom Ring, a nonpartisan public policy membership organization promoting Constitutional government, economic freedom, and traditional family values.

As a sponsor of the creche, Colin Hanna is hardly an impartial observer -- and as someone who is not now and has never been a member of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, he's hardly in any position to speak about their motives, goals, or values. Maybe that's why he was picked to comment on exactly that topic rather than on something that he would know about. After all, why interview the people who have relevant knowledge and information if there is a risk that actual facts might undermine a good rant?

I don't think it's a coincidence that attacking people not only without the use of fact, but while deliberately avoiding the gathering of actual fact, is far more characteristic of hate-mongering and having an agenda of hate than anything which the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia has done. In effect, then, Jane Gilvary is more guilty of the things she is complaining about than any of the people she is trying to attack. But that's what happens when a person stops relying on facts, isn't it?

As a further indication that Jane Gilvary is more interested in ideology than sober, objective facts, just witness her own speculations about the atheists' motivations:

Indeed, the Freethought Society and their founder Margaret Downey are agents of the Enemy in every regard and their garish tree replete with "ornaments" in the shape of laminated book covers by prominent atheists is in poor taste. Of the hundreds of book titles hanging on the tree some include A Devil's Chaplain and The God Delusion by avowed doubter Richard Dawkins, Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, and The End of Faith by Sam Harris.

Did you notice the phrasing in the first sentence? Not content with quoting Colin Hanna's baseless, fact-free accusations, Jane Gilvary decided to up the stakes by accusing the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia of being "agents of the Enemy." That means they are agents of Satan, if you misplaced your Fundy-to-English dictionary. It's not enough to get people to believe that atheists are the one's with an agenda of hate, but here Gilvary wants readers to regard the atheists as literally acting on behalf of a satanic agenda -- an evil agenda lacking any sort of redeeming, mitigating qualities. If that's not hate mongering, I don't know what is.

What's amusing, though, is that Jane Gilvary thinks she can base such an absurd claim on the fact that out of hundreds and hundreds of book titles referenced in the Tree of Knowledge, there are a couple of books that were actually written by atheists. How horrible! Why, it must be satantic for anyone to promote any sort of book written by atheists for the purpose of critiquing religion, theism, or Christianity. No one but an Agent of the Enemy would ever do such a dastardly, vile thing!

And this is the level of reasoning, evidence, and discourse we can expect from Christians trying to "defend" Christmas, right?

An Open Letter to Bill Maher on Vaccinations

I found this "letter" and wanted to post it. But not before calling Bill Maher out on some world class hypocrisy (from his own show):

New Rule: If you don't think your daughter getting cancer is worse than your daughter having sex, then you're doing it wrong. Last year, science came up with a way to greatly reduce cervical cancer in young women. It's a vaccine that prevents women from getting HPV, which is a sexually transmitted disease that acts as a gateway to the cancer. And the vaccine is so good, it could wipe out HPV. I keep a stockpile near my hot tub, and I can tell you, that tingling sensation means it's really working. And I'd say that even without the endorsement deal.

Now for the bad news: Not everyone is pleased with this vaccine. That prevents cancer. Christian parent groups and churches nationwide are fighting it. Bridget Maher -- no relation, and none planned -- of the Family Research Council says giving girls the vaccine is bad, because the girls "may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex."

How convenient your hypocrisy is when you see "the enemy" lined up. While I am a wholehearted supporter of some of your views (particularly on religion), I must call into question your views on vaccines. It seems you are applying an inconsistent methodology of skepticism as Dr Shermer points out in the following letter:

An Open Letter to Bill Maher on Vaccinations

From a Fellow Skeptic

By Michael Shermer
Editor of Skeptic magazine and “Skeptic” columnist for Scientific American

Dear Bill,

Years ago you invited me to appear as a fellow skeptic several times on your ABC show Politically Incorrect, and I have ever since shared your skepticism on so many matters important to both of us: creationism and intelligent design, religious supernaturalism and New Age paranormal piffle, 9/11 “truthers”, Obama “birthers”, and all manner of conspiratorial codswallop. On these matters, and many others, you rightly deserved the Richard Dawkins Award from Atheist Alliance International.

However, I believe that when it comes to alternative medicine in general and vaccinations in particular you have fallen prey to the same cognitive biases and conspiratorial thinking that you have so astutely identified in others. In fact, the very principle of how vaccinations work is additional proof (as if we needed more) against the creationists that evolution happened and that natural selection is real: vaccinations work by tricking the body’s immune system into thinking that it has already had the disease for which the vaccination was given. Our immune system “adapts” to the invading pathogens and “evolves” to fight them, such that when it encounters a biologically similar pathogen (which itself may have evolved) it has in its armory the weapons needed to fight it. This is why many of us born in the 1950s and before may already have some immunity against the H1N1 flu because of its genetic similarity to earlier influenza viruses, and why many of those born after really should get vaccinated.

Vaccinations are not 100% effective, nor are they risk free. But the benefits far outweigh the risks, and when communities in the U.S. and the U.K. in recent years have foregone vaccinations in large numbers, herd immunity is lost and communicable diseases have come roaring back. This is yet another example of evolution at work, but in this case it is working against us. (See www.sciencebasedmedicine.org for numerous articles answering every one of the objections to vaccinations.)

Vaccination is one of science’s greatest discoveries. It is with considerable irony, then, that as a full-throated opponent of the nonsense that calls itself Intelligent Design, your anti-vaccination stance makes you something of an anti-evolutionist. Since you have been so vocal in your defense of the theory of evolution, I implore you to be consistent in your support of the theory across all domains and to please reconsider your position on vaccinations. It was not unreasonable to be a vaccination skeptic in the 1880s, which the co-discovered of natural selection—Alfred Russel Wallace—was, but we’ve learned a lot over the past century. Evolution explains why vaccinations work. Please stop denying evolution in this special case.

As well, Bill, your comments about not wanting to “trust the government” to inject us with a potentially deadly virus, along with many comments you have made about “big pharma” being in cahoots with the AMA and the CDC to keep us sick in the name of corporate profits is, in every way that matters, indistinguishable from 9/11 conspiracy mongering. Your brilliant line about how we know that the Bush administration did not orchestrate 9/11 (“because it worked”), applies here: the idea that dozens or hundreds pharmaceutical executives, AMA directors, CDC doctors, and corporate CEOs could pull off a conspiracy to keep us all sick in the name of money and power makes about as much sense as believing that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their bureaucratic apparatchiks planted explosive devices in the World Trade Center and flew remote controlled planes into the buildings.

Finally, Bill, please consider the odd juxtaposition of your enthusiastic support for health care reform and government intervention into this aspect of our medical lives, with your skepticism that these same people—when it comes to vaccinations and disease prevention—suddenly lose their sense of morality along with their medical training. You excoriate the political right for not trusting the government with our health, and then in the next breath you inadvertently join their chorus when you denounce vaccinations, thereby adding fodder for their ideological cannons. Please remember that it’s the same people administrating both health care and vaccination programs.

One of the most remarkable features of science is that it often leads its practitioners to change their minds and to say “I was wrong.” Perhaps we don’t do it enough, as our own blinders and egos can get in the way, but it does happen, and it certainly happens a lot more in science than it does in religion or politics. I’ve done it. I used to be a global warming skeptic, but I reconsidered the evidence and announced in Scientific American that I was wrong. Please reconsider both the evidence for vaccinations, as well as the inconsistencies in your position, and think about doing one of the bravest and most honorable things any critical thinker can do, and that is to publicly state, “I changed my mind. I was wrong.”

With respect,

Michael Shermer

Oh, The Hypocricy...

Today I found this article: Christian Group Condemns Zoo's Elephant Sculpture.

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

10 Commandments Monument to be built on Courthouse Lawn.

Okay, two different countries here (Yes, Canada is actually a country to those of you who learned geography in the US...), but seriously, can these christian groups not even see their own glaring hypocrisy? If another group puts something up, they are all up in arms and get their panties in a bunch. However, it's all well and good for THEM to put up anything they please.

I guess if you have intellectually castrated yourself enough to actually believe the bullshit religion peddles, this sort of a dissonance doesn't even register above the noise... As I keep saying, hypocrisy is so ingrained into the entire religious delusion that it's an expected way to operate. And no matter how much you point it out to theitards, they will deny it. They get upset when people put up innoffensive billboards that say such devestating messages as "Imagine no religion." or "There probably is no god, enjoy your life."

I have often pointed out that just because an idea is religious, it doesn't somehow deserve automatic respect or defference. For too long we've let religious ideas just skate without putting any sort of challenge to them. And just because you challenge an idea, don't get all uppitty about it. Disagrement is not intollerance. I am convinced that most theitards are just afraid to actually have to defend their ideas against rigorous logic and provide evidence. Their ideas posses none of those qualities, and they aren't used to anyone actually questioning them. Besides, how many of them have actually read the whole basis for their belief system? Sure, many have read the good parts, and a lot of books highlighting the good parts, but to actually slog through the entire book of fables takes a type of dedication that I don't think most possess. And if they have read the whole thing, and remain theistic, well, there you have that mental castration and dissonance agian.

I'm starting to see how how big a bunch of pussies they really are. The catholic leauge got all up in arms over a Penn and teller episode of Bullshit. Sure, Penn can be abrasive, obnoxious, and downright rude, but to demand that their freedom of speech be impeeded because it may point out more hypociricy is, well, yet even more hypocricy. And when I pointe out that thse theitards are being pussies, wimps, and all around cry babies, the theitards themselves get as childish as the church.

Oh well, just a little rant for today. Sorry that I sort of went all over the place with this one. It's hard when you keep getting interrupted.

Bloodthirsty Savages

Okay, I live in an area that is quite religious. I'd say they are nearly religious enough to be featured on 60 Minutes as a cult (that's just me being snarky, since I really consider all religion to be a cult). Anyway, the local paper has this fun feature where the locals can comment on the stories. Now, for a religion that claims its main tenets are forgiveness and love, you'd be amazed at the comments the locals make! In general, if there is a story about someone doing anything from spitting on the sidewalk to a felony, the standard reaction is to wish great bodily harm on them in one way or another! I kid you not! We're talking a level of violence that I can only assume was stirred up by such lovely films as Passion of the christ or something!

Now, the funny thing is, an ATHEIST makes a comment to them that they seem to be rather hypocritical, and righteous indignation wins out over their religious doctrine. Now, I intentionally worded the admonition in a way to get them wound up, just to see if they could see the underlying message. I don't think they could at all! I also created another posting account and made absolutely VILE posts (like saying I was glad some lowlife was dead from an auto accident and the like). I bet you can predict their response to those sort of comments. Yep, they seemed to wholly approve them. And they still can't see the hypocrisy of it all.

Now, there have been numerous studies that correlate low intelligence with a propensity to act out violently. I think that there may also be a correlation between low intelligence and these particularly bloodthirsty xtians! Just as there is a correlation between atheism and high intelligence. Not saying all xtians are stupid, but their representatives sure don't do them any favours.

Anyway, I was just complaining really. Sometimes it's depressing to live in such an intellectual wasteland as this area, surrounded by such hypocrites. And hypocrisy runs deep in xtians. Here is one of my favorite top 10 lists to leave you with:

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.