The Hypocrisy of Religionism

fetus at 12 weeks -- 2 1/2 inches in length
The more that I know of strongly religious people, the less I respect them. Needless to say, I do not respect religious myths, but I am talking about the people who claim to love Jesus whilst defying the moral teachings ascribed to Jesus.

Commandments 1-5 are, predictably, devoted to entrenching Yahweh's rights, but the next is relevant to the video.

6 “You shall not murder.

"Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission."

Definitions of late-term abortion vary. Some sources place the cut-off after 12 weeks, while others use 20 weeks, or 27 weeks.

Regardless, it is hypocritical to murder a sentient adult to protect unwanted, or life-threatening fetuses.

Abortion is legal in many states. Murder is legal in none.

I consider abortion a last resort technique of birth control, but other methods sometimes fail and some highly fertile young people neglect precautions. Regardless, if abortion is not legal, back-street abortionists will step in to fill the need. In other words, there is no way to stop abortion. Better, then, to reduce maternal loss.

I'm reminded of an old skit by Whoopi Goldberg:

"I have the answer to abortion .......... shoot men's dicks!"

Amusing irony, but vasectomy would seem a less traumatic solution.

Killing doctors for providing a too often needed service is heinous. During a church service, no less.


Beautiful planet. Anthropogenic degradation.

If anyone watching this recognizes the music, please leave a comment. I can't find the information.

Experimenting with FilmRookie

I don't like the site's colours, and some of its features are less community-oriented than YouTube, but lots of atheists have decamped to FilmRookie because YouTube is so badly mis-managed. At least this video runs in both the US and Canada.

video platform video management video solutions free video player

Yawn, yawn, yawn

Needless to say, PZ Myers expresses this better than I could.

Charlotte Allen's recent diatribe against atheists created a minor tempest in a teacup—and rightly so. Until last week's ill-conceived editorial in the LA Times, I had never heard of the woman. A friend sent me a link to Charlotte's venom-dripping web of misrepresentations.

My friend could not even finish reading the article.

I could.

Irritation keeps me awake.

My irritation resulted from the transparent attempt to poison the well – there's a lot of that going around – against atheistic non-acceptance of theistic claims.

Frankly, I don't give a toss whether or not Charlotte finds us atheists "boring". We shall happily spare her feelings and not include her on our list of dinner guests when next we have pizza and beer. Or, are atheists supposed to serve tofu and herbal tea?

Allen's emotional stance does underline the fact that theists have not a fact to stand on in defending their beliefs. Without any recourse to incontrovertible evidence for the "omnipotent, omnipresent creator" that Christians love to worship, they have only emotional reactions, fallacies of logic, and invented "facts".

(Misinterpreted evidence is not evidence. There's a lot of that going around too.)

Even if every atheist on the planet were a terminal bore who speaks of nothing but lack-of-belief-in-supernatural-myths, that would not render disbelief invalid. Nor would it render disbelief valid. That is the point. Personal, emotion-invoking qualities of the thinkers signify nothing about the truth value of the thoughts.
Being mostly both rational and liberal, atheists would accept claims for deities if undeniable evidence of their existence were presented. In the meantime, with respect to something for which there should be evidence, to demand belief despite the total absence of corroborating evidence is to be worse than boring, it is to be ... er ... um ... er ... deluded.

Small wonder, then, that Charlotte cannot protect her cherished beliefs without launching an ill-informed attack on atheists.

Just a couple of her misrepresentations:

Myth #1: Atheists do not refute apologetics.

Admittedly, my refutations are not detailed. However, some atheistic bloggers and video-uploaders take an analytic philosophical approach and do a very thorough job of refuting apologetics.

Myth #2: Atheists can hope for election to political office.

Americans themselves refuted this myth in a recent poll. They would, despite 9/11, sooner elect a Muslim than an atheist. (The result is that political hopefuls in America feign religiosity.)

Charlotte tries to slip one under our rational radar when she claims that old laws against allowing atheists to hold office in a mere six states demonstrates that public office is accessible to atheists.

There should not even be old or new laws, whether in one state or fifty, against public positions for atheists. Why not? The First Amendment to the Constitution is why not. You know the one, the law about separation of church and state. Yes that one — that same law that religionists use to overprotect their religious beliefs. The law that should also apply to those who hold different beliefs.

End of story.

Obviously not the end of the story for voters, but definitely the end for Allen's argument.

As to the attitude of a significant portion of Americans to atheists, I'll quote some Americans:

She writes as if atheists don't get death threats from Christians simply for writing about atheism or talking about it in public. She writes as if we don't get our property vandalized by Christians if we get outed as atheists. She writes as if there are no parts of America where we could lose our jobs for being atheists. Allen writes as if completely unaware that Christians spend millions of dollars every year to put their religious beliefs into law - laws which everyone, regardless of religion or non-religion, will be required to follow. She writes as if Christians don't intimidate the children of atheists in attempts to convert them which sometimes ends up in peer violence visited upon those children.

Show me several million atheists trying to force their beliefs into law, trying to use legal force to coerce all Americans to follow their beliefs. Show me the school children forced to perform atheist rituals under fear of punishment from adults and peers. Show me the atheists protesting at funerals - and I might start to listen to you, Ms. Allen.


I live in the Biblebelt where atheism is equated with immorality and depravity. I get judged left right and center by religious nuts who are pro-war, pro-torture and pro-death penalty; I am anti all violence and YET they act as if they are on the moral highway.

Only in the USA? Pity!

The original version of this video played only in the US. I edited the script slightly and added sound effects. Now it plays.

The title is a joke based on a TV commercial for a brand of tea that's apparently only available in Canada. However, it's true that this video was blocked on YT everywhere except the US. This was particularly ironic since I am in Canada, and even more ironic since I can still access the original on a Canadian channel. YT works in mysterious ways, and so is as unworthy of worship as the mythical deity.

This version plays in Canada, so it probably plays everywhere else: