Sieveheads


“Whether or not God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.”

—Denis Diderot

I have long rejected atheism as an identity—though not as a legitimate philosophical or religious outlook—not because I “believe” in God, but because, well, frankly, it’s embarrassing. That is, I get the underlying proposition that there is no God, but atheists never really seem to get past that. It’s almost as if they want to be critics of something, don’t want to put the effort into having a half a clue what they’re talking about, and have rolled out the best excuse they can find for their ill-conceived, uneducated Crusades.

It’s a long list of complaints that have built up over the last twenty years, since I first adopted an atheistic outlook and then abandoned it in the face of a dysfunctional nihilistic demand that requires one’s skepticism be artificially limited exclusively to religion in order to escape, and at no time has the rising atheistic movement offered any real relief. Indeed, the ever-growing body of uninformed mockery the atheistic movement has hurled at religious movements reminds that it really isn’t about whether or not God exists, but finding an excuse to be hateful toward one’s fellow human beings. It’s more about empowerment; they don’t simply want to break the traditional religious power structures in society, they wish to usurp those influences. Thus, even though atheists are supposedly better educated, far too many continue to act just like the idiotic religious neighbors they so need to mock.

Take the new poster boy for the International Association of Atheistic Idiots, one Lukáš Nový, as an example:

A man who wears a sieve on his head for religious reasons has been allowed to wear his bizarre headgear on his official identity card.

Prankster Lukas Novy, from Brno in the Czech Republic, claims that his Pastafarian faith means he has to wear the sieve at all times.

Officials ruled that turning down Novy’s request would be a breach of the country’s religious equality laws.

Sievehead: NovyBrno City Hall spokesman Pavel Zara explained: ‘The application complies with the laws of the Czech Republic where headgear for religious or medical reasons is permitted if it does not hide the face.’

Novy claims to be a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, when emerged in the USA as spoof on organised religion.

According to its tongue-in-cheek website their ‘only dogma … is the rejection of dogma’.

Williams

To the one, the Daily Mail article demonstrates just how stupid Czech officials are, but, to the other, it also reminds us just how sleazy the organized atheism movement actually is.

And more than anything, it’s the sleaze factor that really screws the movement. Then again, it’s what they want. Much like many organized religions, it’s a job-security racket, to deliberately raise demons in order to publicly play the hero and slay them.

Continue reading

Ignorance of History


“Does the House Report say that? Of course, the House Report says that.”

Paul Clement

Chief Justice John RobertsThere really is no point in gloating, fretting, or prognosticating about what we’ve heard from the Supreme Court this week. Indeed, even Justice Scalia—the Great Grumpus Cat of the Supreme Court—can still surprise, and when weighing his homophobia in a tax fight, it’s hard to figure which way he’ll go.

Still, though, Chief Justice John Roberts provided an interesting, tangential branch in the discussion that some have noted.

Ryan Grim summarizes, for Huffington Post:

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday reacted incredulously to the notion that members of the Senate or the U.S. president may have been motivated to pass the Defense of Marriage Act by animus or moral objection to gay and lesbian couples. It was a window into his apparent belief that the U.S. is simply not a place burdened by such things as bigotry or racism.

When I read about Roberts’ remarks, I thought of a conservative associate who has a similar argumentative style; it is almost as if history doesn’t exist. It is a problem in our public discourse. Two people who are reasonably educated about history can have a thoughtful discussion about historical issues; it’s not the same, though, if one has to spend the whole time reminding the other of what is actually in the historical record. Obviously, the Chief Justice isn’t the only one; listen to how many educated pundits and analysts can’t seem to think back to recent history.

Continue reading