Creationists dealt a blow in Calif.

I was going to include this with the Sunday Cult Watch since creationism really is a cult (within a cult), fitting the definition leading the Cult Watch post quite well: the adherents of various creationist cults invoke a particular form of worship that involves special creation of humans; animals created as “kinds;” a global flood that exterminated all but two of each “kind;” a planet that is only a few thousand years old; etc. And such religious ideals involve a special sort of attention in the way of being anti-scientific and opposing reason and rational thought when it conflicts with their wacky and superstitious ideals.

So, the cults of creationism (Answers in Genesis, Discovery Institute, et al) were dealt a blow even they can’t ignore in California last week. A federal judge in L.A. ruled that the University of California can “deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution.” Followers of Christian cults, particularly those cults of creationism, objected to UC’s policy, suggesting that it was a policy of “religious discrimination.”

Among the courses rejected by UC is a history course called Christianity’s Influence on America which utilizes a text that, “instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events” and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations.” Another course, this one in science, uses a text titled, Biology for Christian Schools and, “declares on the first page that if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong.”

So UC doesn’t find cult school courses that preach inerrant “truth” to be favorable over those that favor free inquiry and evidence? The only thing questionable about that position is that it actually had to go to court. This is no more asinine than if the Flat Earthers forced the same litigation over refusing to give course credit for denying the sphericity of this two-dimensional planet; or UFO nuts demanding that their high school astronomy programs be accepted even though the first chapter of their textbook deals with the Roswell cover up and the Moon-landing hoax.

And what did the creationist nutters have to say about the ruling on their blogs and sites?

AiG can be quoted to say, “Ultimately, this case is representative of the public—and academia’s—continued refusal to acknowledge the role of presuppositions in shaping how we acquire knowledge, including in the scientific sphere.”

The tragic thing is, these nuts are serious. They assume that because they rely on presuppositions (i.e. that their mythology is assumed the literal word of an assumed god) that, therefore, no one else is capable of achieving objective reality. Which is utter bollocks. There is an objective, knowable truth that can be had more easily and quickly by applying the methods (as opposed to apply the methods of superstition). They presuppose that the Earth is only a few thousand years old based on a single source of information developed by stone and iron age goat herders, ignoring all scientific knowledge and evidence to the contrary because it doesn’t fit their preconceived and particular notion of god.

WorldNut Daily, through the dimwitted Johnathan Falwell, said, well… I’m not going to bother quoting that asshole. Suffice to say, he went on and on about how society pretends values diversity unless it’s his particular notion of god and how his superstitious and unfounded beliefs should be valued in the name of diversity, etc. It was all very nauseating to read. don’t believe me, click the link and see. Ugh. Falwell committed logical fallacy after logical fallacy in a very weak attempt to make a point that students are forced to accept an “atheistic” point of view.

Sorry pal. Call it what you will, no one is telling students they can’t believe in whatever deities, fairies, Jedi, or magic frogs they want. The University system is about gaining an education in reality and if they haven’t the proper scores in the proper prep classes, they’re going to have a difficult time of it, putting an undo burden on professors and making it unfair for the students who actually did obtain an education. Classes would have to be dumbed down, extra time spent on teaching the basics, and, perhaps, even spent on explaining the reality-based point of view versus the sub-natural one relied on by creationists nutters.

To be fair, the creationist nutters did make a fair point in a couple of the articles I read on their sites, which was that it cannot be assumed that because a student came from a school that used sub-standard texts that she wouldn’t be educated sufficiently in the sciences. But, if these same nutters actually bothered to RTFA, they might have noticed the the sentence, “students whose courses lack UC approval can remain eligible by scoring well in those subjects on the Scholastic Assessment Test.”
But, then, it isn’t characteristic of creationists to actually study, research and do their homework, so we shouldn’t be too surprised by their false assumptions. Indeed, the very title of Falwell’s article, “Christians Need Not Apply” at WorldNut Daily is fallacious even before the first paragraph. The unfortunate thing is, this sort of propaganda feeds quite well into the less-informed masses who happen to be religious and are being led to believe that if they accept science they’re denying their god.

Is the United States a Christian Nation

Is the U.S. a Christian Nation

Is the U.S. a Christian Nation

One of the problems with Yahoo! Answers is that once you answer a question, if someone else comes along and follows up with an answer that you’d like to respond to because it is factually incorrect, you can’t. You only get one shot at answering. So, if anyone at Yahoo! Answers sees this and would like to copy/paste it verbatim to this question, I give my permission and hereby declare this post to be in the Creative Commons. Anyone is free to copy/paste it anywhere else as long as credit is given as a link back to this blog. Also, you are free to modify or add to the post as long as the intent of the post isn’t changed.

Anyway, at Yahoo! Answers, a question was posed: Is the USA a Christian Nation. I responded. Then a Christian responded just after me with a laundry list of quotes and misquotes that lacked any context or completeness. Below is my response to this laundry list, completing johninjc’s list and putting his quotes and misquotes into context. Ironically, he begins with a pseudo-criticism of “[p]eople [using] quotes and misquotes.”


“I see this question all the time. People use quotes and misquotes all the time defending their position. I will give you links to each item I use. The links come from government websites and websites of major universities.”

Let’s look at these more closely, shall we?

Proclamations of Thanksgiving, Fasting, and Prayer
johninjc provides a several quotes from a linked images of single pages of a single Congressional proclamations in the year 1776-1779. The proclamations call for days of “solemn thanksgiving and praise” and prayer and use the religious language of the day.

What johninjc doesn’t bother with is the dissenting voices of the Founding Fathers to this type of proclamation. More than one of these proclamations were entered into Congressional record. And more than once they were opposed by names that carry far more Founding weight than E. Thompson and M. Weare.d

James Madison expressed several objections to such proclamations of thanksgivings and fasting in his Detached Memoranda [1][2]:

They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious [sic] idea of a national religion.

And Madison concluded with:

The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea.

Indeed, Madison also questioned in that document the practice of including chaplains in the Congress:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

It’s also important to note that the proclamations as well as the chaplains were traditions that were started well before The United States became a nation, so johninjc was in error in using this as evidence for his “Christian nation.”

James Madison wasn’t the only Founding Father to object to proclamations of thanksgiving and fasting. Another, very notable, Founding Father, likewise, had his doubts about the wisdom of embracing any one religion or religion in general. That was none other than Thomas Jefferson.

In a letter written to Samuel Miller, Jefferson said:

Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. …But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from […] [my sense of reason] tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

Another important detail is to note that even those Founding Fathers who were opposed to issuing these types of proclamations occasionally found themselves using religious beliefs for political purposes. Yet it doesn’t imply that they felt Christianity was either important or necessary in Founding the United States.

Quotes From Founding Fathers

George Washington

Next, johninjc proceeds to provide several quotes by Founding Fathers, leading off with George Washington and his inaugural address in 1789. In that address, Washington uses terms like “Almighty Being” and “invisible hand,” but he never once uses any Christian terminology. Indeed, he never says the word “God.” This should be painfully obvious to the Christian and, at the very least, concerning. Why wouldn’t Washington recognize their religious beliefs directly and specifically.

The reason, of course, is that he was a Deist not a Christian. Bishop White, Washington’s pastor, wrote in reply to Rev. B.C.C. Parker of Massachusetts when the good reverend was eager to learn of Washington’s “Christianity [3]:”

I do not believe that any degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation further than as may be hoped from his constant attendance upon Christian worship, in connection with the general reserve of his character

I’ve no hyperlink to this book. Sorry. You may need to visit a library if you wish to verify the text. In such a trip to the library, one might probably encounter several of Washington’s contemporaries directly state that he “was a Deist.”

John Adams

Next, johninjc includes a quote by John Adams in a letter to Abigail regarding the manner in which the newly formed nation should celebrate its independence. In the letter, John writes to his beloved, “It [Independence Day] ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty.” This is the most religious text of the document and johninjc, as well as a few desperate others, present this as some sort of evidence that Adams was a Christian.

What are we to make of this? Is Adams saying or implying that he is a Christian? Or is he acknowledging, as the agnostic and Deistic Founding Fathers frequently did, that religion is a good thing for the common people; that religion is present among the common people. If Adams is acknowledging that he is a Christian, then it will be a simple matter to find other quotes which more specifically and explicitly state as much. If, however, Adams is merely acknowledging that the common people hold religious beliefs and that it is expected that these religious language and superstition be included in significant events.

We don’t find explicit and direct admissions of religious belief among John or Abigail in their writings. We only see the vague and subjective use of religious language quoted above, which is used as the legal language of the day. Indeed, what we can readily find are quotes such as these [4][5]:

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?

The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning…. And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes.

Plenty of Adams’ letters and writings included religious language, enough, in fact, that that it might be logical to assume that, at least in his early years, he was a believer in the Christian God. It was clearer and clearer in his later years, however, that Adams’ religious views were more Deistic or perhaps even atheistic. Regardless, any scholar of Adams must admit that Adams opposed religious influences in government and was in favor of a distinct separation of Church and State. His signing the Treaty of Tripoli, more than any other document, demonstrates this [6]:

As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen … it is declared … that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. … The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.

Thomas Jefferson

Finally, johninjc quotes two more Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson and . In each, he finds some spurious mentions of God and use of religious language, generally considered to be the legal language of the day. One is left to wonder if acknowledging only those quotes and speeches that confirm a conclusion already arrived at constitutes the sum of his learning. At the very least, it is the precise sort of “misquotes” johninjc pretended to have an objection to -snippets of writings and speech taken out of context or without consideration for opinions of the Founding Father that don’t match with his preconceived conclusions. Such Christians act and react without intellectual honesty, since information that doesn’t support their conclusions does not exist or is ignored.

Jefferson wrote this about Christianity [7]:

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand.

Indeed, as I noted previously on Yahoo! Answers, Jefferson was in favor of a “wall of seperation between church and state [8]:”

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties

The writings and opinions of the Founding Fathers are clear: there was to be a division of church and state; the United States of America was not to be a “Christian nation” any more than it was to be a Muslim nation or a Jewish nation.

Austin Cline at writes:

The real problem is that traditionally, Christians and Christian groups occupied a position of privilege which was not accorded to any other religious tradition in America. Today, however, more and more of that privilege is being lost, and even if they are not able to consciously articulate it, many Christians are acutely aware of that loss and aren’t happy about it. Unfortunately for them, there also isn’t anything which they can do about it, at least so long as they remain committed a free nation.

I agree with Austin on this point. The goal of the religious right in the United States is to obtain,maintain, and/or sustain power and status, depending upon how they see their current situation. I would add that it is also unfortunate for these Christians that their position is un-American and not consistent with the patriotism and sense of unity that the Founding Fathers originally envisioned and ultimately laid out in their official and unofficial writings.

I chose the quotes and references above for the express purpose of demonstrating that the Founding Fathers were decidedly against the idea of religion being involved in government or state affairs. There is two ways one can view the title question of this post, is the United States a Christian nation?: 1) is it comprised of a majority that is Christian? 2) is it a nation that should be exclusively governed with Christian values, principles and doctrine in mind?

In the former, we can answer “yes” in much the same way that we could have answered “yes” to the question of whether the United States is a “white nation.” Yet, we shouldn’t be proud to do so. The real question is the latter, and to that the Founding Fathers have generously answered. The U.S. is not a “Christian nation,” but one where church and state affairs are held necessarily separate to the advantage of all believers and non-believers alike.

1. Madison, James (1823?). Detached Memoranda. Library of Congress. Found online at: [image]

2. Madison, James (1823?). Detached Memoranda. University of Chicago. Found online at:

3. Wilson, Byrd (1839). Memoir of Bishop White. Philadelphia, p.193

4. Braden, Bruce (2005). Ye Will Say I Am No Christian. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books

5. Carey, George W. (2001). The Political Writings of John Adams. Washington, D.C.: Regnery, p. 440

6. United States (1797). The Treaty of Tripoli. Library of Congress. Found online at:

7. Jefferson, Thomas (1781-1782). Notes on the State of Virginia. Found online at:∂=all

8. Jefferson, Thomas (1802, Jan 1). Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists. Library of Congress, found online at:

Creation on the Web and Morality

Codswallop on the Web has an article titled, “Can we be good without god?”

To the atheist, this question need not even be answered since we have no gods yet we’re “good.” Sure, there are “bad” atheists. Arguably fewer than there are “bad” theists, but then atheists don’t walk the Earth with an imagined “get out of jail free card” like those deluded by cults of Christianity do. We don’t assume that whatever we do, we can always just ask for forgiveness from an unseen and imaginary agent and all will be well.

For the atheist, this life is it. This is all there is and there’s no promised afterlife to strive for. And, for the atheist, any required forgiveness must be solicited from those whose lives were affected by our decisions. Therefore, we’re careful to live our lives as if though they were special and that we, alone, are responsible for who we are or what heights we can acheive.

Morality is the product of human experience and observation; ethics are not dependent upon religious superstition -though I will acknowledge that religious superstition can provide ethical and moral guidelines, but this is not because they were put there by any gods.

To demonstrate this, one need only note that the Judeo-Christian gods (there *are* more than one) are relatively new in human history. Cultures, both extant and extinct, exist that have gods that differ greatly from the Christian gods, yet these cultures have established moral and ethical guidelines. Indeed, there are universal commonalities between cultures of varied and often conflicting supernatural deities. In no culture, for instance, does it appear to be moral or ethical to murder one’s parents in order to assume their wealth.

Christians who make the argument Codswallop on the Web makes do so from an ignorant and undereducated perspective. From their ill-informed and irrational conclusion:

Morality is real precisely because God is real. As our Creator, He is the transcendent authority—the law-giver who gets to tell us what we ‘ought’ or ‘ought not’ to do.

The first sentence, of course, affirms the consequent, stating that morality is true because god is true. It also implies that without a god, there can be no morality, which is clearly hasn’t been shown to be the case. Such fallacious mistakes are common among those that seek to confirm only the conclusions they’ve already arrived at, remaining unwilling to open their minds to other alternatives. In addition, the ignorance of such arguments is further demonstrated by the second statement above since, if true, our society would embrace atrocities such as stoning adulteresses and victims of adultery, slavery, and the notion that it is better to offer up a daughter for rape than to permit a gang rape of a stranger. The god from whom ignorant and unquestioning Christians today believe their morality is derived has no problem with genocide (Joshua 6:20-21), yet few can be found in modern Western society that are willing to approve of the mass killings in Darfour. Then again, there’s little being done to stop these actions by Western society, dominated in the U.S. by Christian cults.

Moreover, I’ve little use for the morality of a god that approves of the pretty girls from the enemy for sex and forced marriage and, if she no longer “delights” me, I can simply let her free (
Deuteronomy 21:10-13). This after the pathetic and immoral god in question permitted me to slay all the males of my enemy and plunder not only the females (the young ones) but the livestock and whatever else I wanted. In the eyes of such a god I can be a thief, a murderer, a rapist, a slaver, and an asshole -but I can still have “everlasting life” as long as I “believe.” Codswallop.

So, when the poor, ignorant individual who wrote this article on Codswallop on the Web concludes that “atheists are in dire straits,” the rational mind is left to, therefore, conclude that apologists for Christian cults and their adherents are to be pittied. What a sad existence they have where they don’t see the glory and wonder in reality, chosing instead to bask in delusion and fantasy throughout their entire lives. Can such a person truly ever be free?

The Undercover Atheist, John Hagee, and Speaking in Tongues

Obama had his religious nutter (Rev. Wright) and now McCain seems to have his own in the form of John Hagee, the televangelist and pastor for a Megachurch in San Antonio, TX (Cornerstone) was heard to state “biblical verses made clear that Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust was part of God’s plan to chase the Jews from Europe and drive them to Palestine” [this quote is from this NY Times article, not Hagee directly]. The articled linked in the previous sentence goes in to far more detail and you’ve probaby already heard it all anyway.

But what I wanted to make note of was a new book that you might not know about. Written by Matt Taibbi, The Great Derangement [] is a first-hand account of an atheist who goes “undercover” with a church-group to a boot camp for new converts, encountering all sorts of madness, nutty behavior, and characters both scary and delightful along the way (mostly scary, it would seem). In an excerpt, which you can read here [], Taibbi shares his observations getting on the bus to go to the boot camp and with members learning to speak in tongues while pretending to get the holy ghost.

The excerpt is short and there are a host of comments defending either Taibbi & atheists or Hagee & religious nuts.

Failure of Religion: Pastor Barron

Plano, TX minister jailed in child sex sting. Pastor Joe Barron of the Prestonwood Baptist Church, 52, was arrested after he drove to Bryan to hook up with a 13 year old girl.

Except the “girl” wasn’t thirteen. And “she” had a badge.

This loving Christian was found hymn book, a box of condoms, and a web camera. Pastor Barron was looking for love in all the wrong places.

To any rationally-minded person, this is an example of the failure of religious belief. Here’s a man that devoted his life and livelihood to the Christian God. A man that probably believed that all his morality and “goodness” comes from his god. A man that was probably considered by those that knew him to be a very good person, likable, trustworthy, and dependable -all because of his religious delusions. And yet, he was a sexual predator that was willing to take advantage of a child by raping her and taking away her innocence. The ability of a religious lifestyle actually produce a morally stable and trustworthy member of society is a resolute failure in the case of Joe Barron.

But the rationally-minded person above wouldn’t apply this failure to all religious adherents. There are numerous cases of religious nuts who are very good people. Joel Olsteen seems to be one of the nicest people on the planet, based on the few interviews I’ve seen of him. I couldn’t imagine Olsteen in Barron’s shoes. But I suspect that if Olsteen were a Budhist, a Muslim, or even an atheist, he’d be a good person. So the rationally-minded person is left to conclude that personal character runs deeper than religious delusion. Religion doesn’t fail in its ability to inform right from wrong or provide a basis for morality, rather, it fails because of its ability to provide an excuse and a “way out” for nuts who have much deeper character and mental flaws.

Religion didn’t make a Texas woman cut off her baby’s arms, but it gave her the rationale for the mental illness that motivated her -supernatural voices in her head. And loads of crimes have been committed by those deluded by religious superstition who heard “voices” of their gods.

But religion probably didn’t fail Barron by providing him with a voice that whispered to him to get an online hook-up with a child. In fact, religion probably didn’t fail Barron at all. Instead, it failed the rest of society. Had Barron’s religious convictions prevented him from seeking out sex with a child on the internet, then we could actually say it failed him since it prevented him from fulfilling his “need.” What happened instead is that Barron’s religious beliefs may have actually given him the green light since all could be forgiven simply by asking after the fact. Tonight, condoms and webcams, and sex with a child. Tomorrow, ask forgiveness from imaginary agents. Next weekend, start all over again. Rinse and repeat as often as needed.

So, in watching reports of the pastor of pedophilia unfold in the local news, I’m expecting harsh criticism from his fellow clergy and members of his congregation. Perhaps even some sort of apology to the public that may have been at risk by his lewd and dangerous behavior. The asshole was found to have records of similar chats with 25-30 other females on his mobile, so it’s very possible he may already have raped some other child in the past. In none of the news reports on local television that included sound bites from members of Barron’s church did I hear anything that resembled remorse. I’m sure -very sure- there are members of the congregation that are disgusted, ashamed, and pissed. But the ones that made it on television were nutjobs.

A church official for the cult stood in front of followers and announced that Barron was no longer a member. But then he said they had been “dealt a blow by the enemy.”

Enemy? What “enemy?” The police? The undercover officers that found a guy who was willing to travel 3-4 hours from his own home in his wife’s car to meet up with a child so he could fuck her? Who probably already did this in the past?

An earlier interview with a member of the cult stated that she was relieved and happy by the news of Barron’s arrest. Not because a child predator was now off the streets, but because she had “prayed” that anyone in their cult that was evil be “exposed.” You see, she was happy that her “prayer” was answered, confirming her delusion.

Until his arrest, Joe Barron taught a leadership class at his church called “Connecting the Dots – A Guide to Connecting the Word of God to Daily Living.” One is left to wonder how he connected the word of his god to his daily routine of chatting with children on the internet, trolling for sexual satisfaction. When he went on a mission to Bogata, Columbia with his church in August 2007, did he find time in his schedule for his young tastes? Remember, he had 25-30 different females on his mobile phone with whom he chatted and that’s here in the U.S. where laws and oversight of the sex industry is much stricter. Sending this guy to Bogata would have been like sending him to Thailand. And the best this church cult has to offer the D/FW community is that they’ve been “dealt a blow by the enemy” and that they’re prayers were answered.

I’m reminded that the BTK killer was the president of his congregation council. I’m not suggesting that religion is responsible for inspiring either Barron or BTK, but clearly religion failed to stop their behavior. It may even have made their evil acts possible by providing that all-too-easy escape route of simply asking for forgiveness from their imaginary god. If an evil person thinks they can be absolved of their crimes just by asking, what’s to keep them from acting on their darkest fantasies?

And lest you think most of the child sex-abuse is from Catholic priests, think again.

Bible Bashing Crime

Alabama mayor Larry Langford has been accused of not doing enough to fight crime.

So what does he do?

Increase spending to law enforcement? Support crime prevention measures and awareness? Find ways to reduce demonstrable catalysts for crime like poverty, failures in public education, joblessness, and housing?

No, nothing so mundane or worldly. The Mayor of Birmingham boldly boasts of biblical brawn. He handed out 5,000 bibles in both English and Spanish to attendees of a family summit on April 4th.

“He is the only source of protection you’ve got. I make no apologies for it. I serve a good God and I’m glad He found me.”

Think I’m kidding? Watch the video.

Actually, the move is politically brilliant. He’s a failure at crime prevention and protecting his constituency and clueless of how to accomplish realistic and rational goals in this endeavor. By invoking God and playing to the superstitions of the voters, he makes himself appealing and difficult to criticize by anyone that runs against him. After all, he has God on his side, right?

Some interesting figures:

There are 1332 churches listed in the “SuperPages” for Birmingham, Alabama.

There are 229,424 people in Birmingham, AL according to Wikipedia.

There are 311 churches in listed in the “SuperPages” for Madison, WI.

There are 223,389 people in Madison, WI according to Wikipedia.

Birmingham, Alabama and Madison, Wisconsin are roughly the same size cities according to Wikipedia and yet the difference in number of churches according to SuperPages is roughly 1000! Not a scientific comparison, but a rough one that serves a purpose.

Now, what is the comparison of crime between the two cities?


Conclusion: Bibles and religion aren’t working.

Edit: the above graph can be found at, Crime Rate Comparison: Birmingham Vs. Madison. Check it out… compare your own city to the city you’re planning to move to, etc.

Christian Terrorist Visits Breaking Spells

I’m not kidding. The nutjob that runs the ArmyofGod website left a comment on my previous post.

This wacko has links to dedicated webpages to his “heroes:” Eric Rudolf, Paul Hill, James Kopp, and several other Christian terrorists. The site includes the Army of God Manual, an instruction manual that “Rev. Spitz” claims is an anonymous work (probably from his own demented, delusional and decrepit mind). This “manual” is an instruction book on terrorism. As surely as an Al Qaeda handbook or the manifesto for the Baader Meinhoff gang of the late 1970s/early 1980s, which incites hatred, violence, and the death of the innocent in order to achieve their goals of ridding the world of abortion and homosexuality.

What’s ironic about nutjobs like Rev Spitz and his “heroes” is that they choose what they want to pick from their book of myths to hate and commit terrorist acts about. They aren’t following their alleged god’s word, they’re following their own word. As mentally ill, sociopathic  and pathetic humans, they extreme methods for exercising their sociopathic and inhumane tendencies. For them, the cults of anti-abortion/anti-gay religious nuts allows for freedom of expression of themselves as sociopaths.

Otherwise, why not hold the same standards for the other “wicked” habits of man? The mythical god they believe in also has an objection to adultery. It also claims to have a disdain for those that don’t keep the sabbath. Why don’t we see these same religious nuts bombing the homes of adulterers, assassinating neighbors who mow their lawns on the weekend, etc?

Thanks for dropping by Rev Spitz, you just reminded us all why we think Christianity is bullshit. Your stupid ass belongs at Gitmo with the other terrorists.