Friday, April 22, 2016

Putting Communism to the Sword


In the upcoming month, I've decided to devote a good number of postings to exposing communism, socialism and democratic socialism, and I've decided this for a few reasons:

-Poll after poll show people in my age group and younger are more likely to have a positive view of socialism than any other.
-Many in my age group and younger have no idea what they're asking for when they're promoting socialism...or as one article puts it, Millennials are socialists until they get jobs.
-This is also personal for me because I do have a friend who is otherwise well-meaning, level-headed and likes his life...but for some reason he supports Bernie Sanders. So as much as I'd love to, I can't call all Sanders supporters stupid, but I can call them misguided.
-Many admitted socialists are actually trying to lecture people who have lived under communism/socialism about how great both systems are.
-Most of all, communism is the sworn enemy of the Catholic Church, and thus I am duty bound to fight communism wherever and whenever it rears its ugly head.

And since May is also the month dedicated to Mary and St Joseph the Worker, what better time of year to take down godless, atheist communism?

Friday, April 15, 2016

The Flying Spaghetti Monster Gets Devoured!

A Nebraska inmate who has professed his allegiance to the divine Flying Spaghetti Monster lost his bid demanding that prison officials accommodate his Pastafarianism faith.
A federal judge dismissed the suit (PDF) Tuesday brought by Stephen Cavanaugh, who is serving a 4- to 8-year term on assault and weapons charges at the Nebraska State Penitentiary. US District Judge John Gerrard ruled that "FSMism" isn't a religion like the ones protected under the Constitution.
"The Court finds that FSMism is not a 'religion' within the meaning of the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education. Those are important issues, and FSMism contains a serious argument—but that does not mean that the trappings of the satire used to make that argument are entitled to protection as a 'religion,'" the judge ruled. (PDF)
For the uninitiated, Judge Gerrard gives some explanatory background on Pastafarianism:
FSMism is a riposte to intelligent design that began with a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education when it was considering intelligent design. See, Bobby Henderson, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster 111-13 (2006) (FSM Gospel). The primary criticism of intelligent design—and the basis for excluding it from school science classes—is that although it purports to be "scientific," it is actually "an interesting theological argument" but "not science." Kitzmiller, 400 F. Supp. 2d at 745-46. The conceit of FSMism is that, because intelligent design does not identify the designer, its "master intellect" could just as easily be a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" as any Judeo-Christian deity—and, in fact, that there is as much scientific evidence for a Flying Spaghetti Monster as any other creator. See FSM Gospel at 3-4. 1 As the FSM Gospel explains, "[w]e are entering into an exciting time, when no longer will science be limited to natural explanations. . . . Propelled by popular opinion and local government, science is quickly becoming receptive to all logical theories, natural and supernatural alike."
In his lawsuit, the inmate sought $5 million and claimed he has "several tattoos proclaiming his faith" and demanded that prison officials afford his "faith" the "ability to order and wear religious clothing and pendants, the right to meet for weekly worship services and classes and the right to receive communion." Corrections officials determined FSMism was a parody religion and rejected his requests. (The religious clothing at issue is "a pirate costume," the judge notes.)
According to the ruling:
This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction. A prisoner could just as easily read the works of Vonnegut or Heinlein and claim it as his holy book, and demand accommodation of Bokononism or the Church of All Worlds. 6 See, Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle (Dell Publishing 1988) (1963); Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land (Putnam Publ'g Grp. 1961). Of course, there are those who contend—and Cavanaugh is probably among them—that the Bible or the Koran are just as fictional as those books. It is not always an easy line to draw. But there must be a line beyond which a practice is not "religious" simply because a plaintiff labels it as such. The Court concludes that FSMism is on the far side of that line.
Nebraska, in seeking to have the case dismissed, told the judge that there was no constitutional violation. "The essence of this action," the state wrote, "is that prison officials believe the Plaintiff is not sincere in his religious beliefs about a flying lump of spaghetti that first created 'a mountain, trees, and a midget.'"
(For the link, click here)
You see, atheists? Courts are NOT buying your FSM claim. They understand it for the garbage that we know it is, and if you had any brains, you'd realize it too. 

Friday, April 8, 2016

A Rant Against Ellen



I must admit there is so much atheist stupid in the world that sometimes it just takes a rant to tear it to shreds. In this case, so-called "comedian" Ellen DeGeneres took time from her talk show to speak out against a new law in Mississippi targeted against gay people..or so she claims.

Here's the brass tacks of what she said with me pointing out in the red lettering why her statements are so dumb.

"I am not a political person. This isn't about politics. This is about freedom."

[Really? You're not a political person? How come you're close friends with only liberals? And if it were about freedom, how come you never spoke out when a baker gets sued for not catering a gay wedding? Isn't it their freedom to deny service to people?]

This is something the Supreme Court has already ruled on."

[You mean the same court that said Japanese people belong in internment camps? Since when is the Supreme Court a standard for morality?]

They [the US Supreme Court] said the same thing Diana Ross said. "Stop in the name of love."

[You mean the same love gay activists show Christians?]

Imagine if two cupcakes walk into a flower shop but the owner doesn't want to sell them any because the cupcakes don't have any money. Well, gay people do have money so sell them the damn flowers.

[That makes no sense. I can't speak for each florist or baker but does she honestly think this is about money? It's jokes like this that make me conclude she just isn't funny. And don't hand me any of that bull about her having a talk show. If I can have an opinion of her not being funny, then florists can have their own opinion on who they sell flowers to.]

If you live in any area and you're judged by who you love, don't despair.

[If gay activist actions are any indication, you will be judged if you love Jesus.]

I was fired for being gay and I know how it feels like.

[This goes back to her claim about it saying businesses can deny employment to someone for being gay. Too bad for her I have read the law and all it says concerning employment is whether the employee follows the company standards, one of which is employees can only wear clothing appropriate to their gender. Companies are allowed to set their own standards.
Speaking of company, Ellen was not fired from ABC for being gay. She was fired because of low ratings. 
Besides Doesn't she voice Dory in Finding Nemo and the upcoming Finding Dory?Aren't those both Disney productions? Doesn't Disney own ABC?
So no...she doesn't know what it feels like and she needs to stop pretending she does.]

I can buy the governor's mansion, flip it and make millions in profit.

[I've been meaning to are those sky-high taxes working out in California?]

Sunday, April 3, 2016

Atheist Thought Experiments Debunked #7

                              "Jesus didn't invent the Golden Rule"


To most Christians, that sounds a little confusing because Jesus said it first, right? Well, allow me to write out the atheist thought process on this:

You see, to the atheist, Jesus is no one special. In order to justify that notion, they'll look for whatever they can to uphold that notion, no matter how little sense it makes. 

So how do they do that with the Golden Rule? First, they point out the teaching exists with other philosophers or moral teachers such as Confucius, and Laozi and an early version can even be found in ancient Egyptian writings.
So to the atheist, at best Jesus is just repeating what others have already said and at worst Jesus just stole from other people. So case closed, right?

Not exactly.

Three traits must be present in order to prove an idea was stolen:

-One came before the other
-The two ideas must have numerous traits in common
-One must have known the other existed

I'll do the first one last since I found something interesting about it, and start things off with the second one.

While some Eastern thinkers say something similar, all of them say it with key differences. Laozi speaks of a neighbor's gain; Mozi speaks of actions in terms of how to treat other's families. Sanskrit tradition does somewhat better by giving an objective standard to how to treat others (which is more than can be said about Zoroastrianism), but the teaching is directed towards a king, not an everyday person.

This then begs a good question: with all these others touting similar things, did Jesus actually know they existed? If we factored in His human knowledge, I don't see how. Historical rumors not withstanding, there's no evidence Jesus ever traveled to India or China, and even if He did, as a devout Jew, He would have had nothing to do with the pagan culture. Even if we factored in divine knowledge,  one mark by itself does not prove plagiarism.

So what of the first trait? Clearly, some did come before Jesus began preaching, right?
Not quite.
You see, when Jesus makes the statement, He also includes a side note where He says the teaching is a summation of Moses and the OT prophets. How is that important? Because the core teaching comes from Leviticus...a book most believe was written between 1440 and 1400 BC, LONG before any of these Eastern thinkers came along. Couple that with the fact Jesus is God Himself, that then means...

Jesus thought of it first and the other teachers are just a coincidence.