Let’s hope so.

There is real hope that what’s happening in a Houston lab might lead to a cure for HIV.

AP

Researcher holds test tubes with separated HIV infected blood

“We have found an innovative way to kill the virus by finding this small region of HIV that is unchangeable,” Dr. Sudhir Paul of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston said.

Dr. Paul and Dr. Miguel Escobar aren’t talking about just suppressing HIV – they’re talking about destroying it permanently by arming the immune system with a new weapon lab tests have shown to be effective.

“We’ve discovered the weak spot of HIV,” he said.

Paul and his team have zeroed in on a section of a key protein in HIV’s structure that does not mutate.

“The virus needs at least one constant region, and that is the essence of calling it the Achilles heel,” Paul said.

That Achilles heel is the doctors’ way in.  They take advantage of it with something called an abzyme.

It’s naturally produced by people, like lupus patients. When they applied that abzyme to the HIV virus, it permanently disarmed it.

“What we already have in our hand are the abzymes that we could be infusing into the human subjects with HIV infection, essentially to move the virus,” Paul said.

Basically, their idea could be used to control the disease for people who already have it and prevent infection for those at risk.

The theory has held up in lab and animal testing.  The next step is human trials.  (Source)

Nothing gets the highbrows blushing with illicit excitement faster than all the varied obscene uses of idiomatic speech. This Masterpiece Lecture on the history of the word “fuck” was presented in college linguistics classes. Harry Frankfurt’s clever treatise On Bullshit became a minor bestseller, which wouldn’t have happened if he’d written a pocket-sized critique on pure reason. All that stops Hector from feeling scandalized when Dorothy describes a boy as “cunt-struck” in the movie version of Alan Bennett’s The History Boys is her indication that it’s a compound adjective and Hector likes compound adjectives. Now psychologist Roy Baumeister continues down the path of sophisticated discussions of filthy words by asking, “[S]houldn’t the adverb form be ‘f**kingly?’ As in, ‘that was f**kingly ridiculous.’” Him first.

Let us turn now from form to content. What is the meaning of the adverb “f**king” or, by extension, “f**kingly?” Just how does something that is “f**king great” or “f**kingly ridiculous” differ from things that are great or ridiculous without reference to fornication? The dictionary on my laptop offers no definition, nor does its thesaurus have a synonym. Anecdotal impression suggests that it is often used as a synonym for “very.” Something that is f**king ridiculous is somehow more ridiculous than something that is merely ridiculous, correct?

(Gawker)

Here’s a perfect example of the Christian lack of not just a sense of humor but even the ability to detect humor.  Their ignorance of what humor is makes them incapable of realizing what nearly every halfway intelligent person on the internet knows; Landover Baptist Church is a parody site! Anyone who cannot appreciate that fact has either never really read anything beyond the headlines or is humor impaired.  That’s not a disability that will let you park in the handicapped zone, but it’s still a serious character defect.

Anyway, this I’m-embarrassed-to-admit-is-a-person writes to Landover:

you people really suk, i noticed you have 28 paid pastors and a bunch of paid decons and boy how you love to beg for money,but correct me if i am wrong but i thought we were not supposed to build churches as jesus taught,nor were we to come to some supposed – false prophets self proclaimed christian pastor for help i think jesus said for us to ask god not some money hungry tithe stealing useuing the money to gloryify his own flesh hireling pastor who serves you not god , you being the man that cuts his check,oh what a sad ripoff platinum tithers? got news for you canninites you cant buy or tithe your way to heaven, as for any sembelince of preetching the gospel of jesus christ witch is what all belivers are suppose to do i dont see it ,,no where on your sight as defined buy the apostles —— and so since you preech some other gospel something half old testement half new you are as galitians says accursed i say again accursed .every thing else i read was so retarded and fucked up i cant say anything to you it be like trying to reason with a steamy pile of shit, oh and i never in a millon years thought i would go to a “christian web site and see porno on it wtf? the immaculate hymen? man you suk ,a pussy pic on a christian web site and you think you are saved ? the only thing you do is lead people to hell because you are a greedy mammon loveing apostate fale jesus preeching guy you steal tithes and pay pastors befor you remember to give to the needy dont you u shitball? i bet more money goes to paying u and you hirlings than it does to those that need it , you say you dont care bout the unsaved –well i am glad to hear some truth out of you mouth but again as jesus teaches us True Christians not you nazis that as apostles our duty is to proclaim the gospel to the what fartheads? the World thats right and that we will be judged on that and weather we bare good fruit or bad the good fruit is the saving of souls asswhipes, how by proclaiming the message jesus told us to proclaim —— you know the whole gospel thing ,we proclaim they either accept or reject, we dont convet, the gosepl does that. 1 more thing i noticed you have a golf coarse pga style hmmm and 18 hughe pools and the largest “christian shopping mall ; jesus said we should deny ourselfs and take up our cross and follow him daily but you guys are dening the word, the people that give you money all to get rich i hope GOD shows you your wrong and gives you time to repent befor its to late signed ub4war@—.com

As Larry the Cable Guy would say, “Now I don’t care who you are, that there’s funny”.

Here’s one of those little facts that often go unnoticed in the larger debate over the validity of the Bible (it has none) and the reality of theism (reality is not an element of theism)…

God and Jesus are both real sourpusses, according to their own, no doubt dour, biographers.

Nowhere in the Bible will you find a passage that states, “God laughed”.  This is the closest thing to it:

Psalm 2

Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?

The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.

“Let us break their chains,” they say,
“and throw off their fetters.”

The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath

It sounds to me like that would be more a “muahahaha” laugh than the kind of laugh I’m talking about.  Scoffing is a haughty and egotistic reaction.

I’m talking about a laugh that indicates pleasure, amusement, wonder.  The kind of laugh that indicates a sense of humor.  The kind of laugh a child would utter.

While the god of the Bible exhibits a warped sense of “humor” (”Hey kid, go down there and die for their sins.  Joke is they’ll still have their sins and you get to come back in 3 days, so I ain’t askin’ for all that much), at least he has a semblance of one.  Jesus, on the other hand, never seemed to exhibit the slightest bit of folly.  Serious dude, all the time about everything.  We all probably know someone like that.  Don’t we all consider them a pain in the ass to be around for very long?

I mean, can anyone imagine Jesus at the last supper or Muhammad sitting on his ass donkey telling those gathered around them a joke?  “Hey, one time a Jew, a Roman and an Indian merchant walk into a bar and the bartender says, “Is this a joke?”  Magic tricks?  Sure, that’s consistent with their love of mystery, but cracking a joke?  Way too out of character for most gods.

Christians, Muslims and the rest especially don’t appreciate humor at their expense.  A healthy ego can handle mockery, but not god’s kids.  Theists have displayed a particularly nasty attitude toward those who mock them.  No religion embraces its critics.  Faith is too weak against reason and logic.  Those who practice reasoning will find no commonality with those who treat reason with contempt.

Is there anything I can say about the followers of Muhammad and their extreme lack of anything even remotely resembling a sense of humor that won’t cause them to call down the wrath of their loving god on my head?  They want to kill cartoonists.  In the West, comics are known to commit suicide all too often, but they don’t do it by strapping a bomb around themselves and taking 50 people with them.  That ain’t funny.  But what Islam believes?  That’s funny.  Nearly Scientology funny.

Humor is one of the most mysterious emotions we have.  We’re only now beginning to understand we aren’t the only species that experiences humor.  For all we know earthworms tell each other knee-slapping jokes all the time, except they can’t slap their knees due to no hands and no knees, but they would if they could.

If anything in our natural world approaches the level of a “religious” experience that all people besides those afflicted theists can experience it’s humor.  You’d think religion would try to appropriate it for its own, like it tries to lay claim to so many perfectly natural traits of humans.  Instead, a sense of humor is just one more sacrifice theists are expected to make in service to their imaginary lord and master.

The American Indians and the Romans, just to toss out a couple of examples, believed in gods that were mischievous, jokesters, tricksters.  Gods with a healthy sense of humor.  I could almost believe in a god that loved to fuck with our minds and took open and honest delight in our discomfort and frustration.

I was asked a few good questions recently and thought those questions with my replies might make an enlightening post for HQ. The questions have been posted without editing or correction.

Preamble: I wanted first off to say that I do respect your positions. I think you are one of the most open-minded people I’ve met (on the internet or other wise).

Thank you.

I want to ask you a few personal questions and if you do not want to answer I understand. These are just some things I cannot experience but want to understand.

Question: I gather from you posts that you are homosexual/gay (I’m not sure what word is politically correct I’ll use gay because to me it sounds cool). Ok enough tip toeing around. There are a few issues that I really want to understand: 1) choice vs. nature; 2) how important gay issues are to you; 3) how hurtful to you is it that certain words like “gay” are used as analogies to “bad”; and 4) does your perspective as a gay man allow you to be more open-minded.

I don’t concern myself too much with political correctness.

“Gay” is just fine.

I don’t believe there’s any choice involved in sexual orientation. In the nature vs. nurture debate, some presume nurture to involve a choice. But if it does, it’s a choice by someone else (i.e. parents), not the choice of the individual. Another thing that might qualify as a choice is whether or not to explore aspects of your personality which are present but unexpressed. In other words, I don’t believe anyone could choose to be gay, but they might choose to explore the gay feelings they have that they’ve been repressing.

That’s what happened to me when I was 22. I knew I was “gay curious” and had noticed gay feelings since I was very young. I just never had the nerve to explore them until I met a very kind and gentle gay man who was willing to answer my questions and let me realize a few of my fantasies. I should add that to be clinically correct, I should call myself bisexual. I’ve had relationships with both men and women. On a scale with heterosexuality as #1 and homosexuality as #10, I’m a #7.

Gay issues are important to me as a liberal humanist. Just like racial and gender issues, gay issues are important to me because they involve human repression and persecution.
“Gay” as a synonym for bad is of little importance. English is a dynamic language, it’s irrational to take offense at the reapplication of a word. Words are tools we use to express thoughts. Sometimes we have to overlook the words used and focus on the thoughts behind the words. That reveals the character of the speaker even more than their choice of words.
No doubt all the aspects of my person have added something to my open-mindedness. My gay attitudes keep me from being blasé about sexual matters. Being left-handed has made me aware of what a right-handed world I live in. It is hard for me to find a conventional belief to hold onto when so much of my being is unconventional.

1) This question has been bothering me since Bill Richardson’s presidency was destroyed because he said being gay is a choice. I was wonder what are you feelings on the issue. Right now I cannot quite understand the difference only because in some way I think the way I am is a choice and part of my nature. I’m not sure if I am not gay or bi because of social constructs or because it is my nature. Although, if it were truly a choice, I am not sure any one would be gay (because of the ridicule that may ensue). However, I would much rather it be a choice but a choice that individuals are free to make. Regardless, the biggest part I want to know is does it matter if it is a choice or not? If it is a choice it should be one anyone is free to have. But I guess if we say that then certain people will condemn it as the wrong choice. Well, I’m lost and I am hoping you can help me answer this question as you have probably thought about it more than I have.

As you may gather from what I’ve said above, the only “choice” involved in homosexuality is whether to come out and be known as a gay person or stay in the closet and deny your nature. Honest straight people know that they never chose to be straight. Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Sexual expression is. Someone may be attracted sexually to dogs (orientation) but never act on their impulses (expression). They have the desire but choose not to act on it. Many gay people are like this.

2) I think this is strait forward. I want to know how closely do you identify as a gay compared to other issues in your life? Do you identify so closely because it is an issue that needs to be solved or because there is a genuine community there. I don’t know if you are familiar with Vonnegut’s book Cat’s Cradle but in that book he talks about a “karass” and “granfalloon.” Basically, a “karass” is a community of individuals who’s lives directly effect each other, revolve around the same object, and reach the same conclusion; a “granfallon” is just a false “karass” (e.g. in the book one of the characters gives the example that a “granfallon” is the community formed by alumni from a college or people living in the same town). The question might be unfair but do you feel the gay community is a “karass.” The reason I think this might be an unfair question is because I feel like it is a “karass” and at the same time is not. The gay community has cetain common goal but at the same time they are clearly individuals. At my school right now we have a very big GLBT program and they seem to fight over issues all the time. The in no way seem like an actual community any more than the United States is a community. Granted they unify when a threat is apparent similar to how the United States unifies. So I am unsure how strong the bond is between gay individuals.

Community has value beyond agreement on issues. Sometimes it’s nice just to know you aren’t alone. The gay aspects of my personality come into play fairly often throughout the day. I think my sense of humor owes a lot to my gayness, my feelings of being an outsider to much of society. I frequently act as the stereotypical gay man to break the ice or add punch to a humorous situation. However, I’m not much of a joiner. I’ve spent the better part of 50 years defining myself and getting to know myself. I’m reluctant to subjugate that to group think. Quite often I’ll join a group simply to show solidarity without any intention of joining in the activities of that group. Gays usually feel united by their gayness in larger, non-gay social groups. That’s why there are organizations for gay Christians, gay Republicans, etc.

There’s also the fact that it is an issue that needs to be discussed in the open and in light of recent medical discoveries. Homophobia is usually caused by ignorance (when it’s source isn’t self-loathing). The best cure for ignorance is education. Discussing homosexuality publically provides education and dispels ignorance. For that reason I’d be supportive of gay people even if I was totally straight.

3) Again, this is strait forward. I myself try to avoid such words. I treat the issue like I treat feminist and race issues. I think certain words can be empowering and demeaning at the same time–depending on how you use it. But my question is more how do you as an individual feel when you hear some kid say to his friend “that’s gay” or “stop being gay”?

Again, it doesn’t bother me. I’m far more cautious around a person who talks about “faggots” than I am around a kid who says my opinion is “so gay”. Straights who use “faggot” and “queer” are exposing their intolerance and hostility toward gays. That’s a warning sign any gay should heed and be aware of.

4) To me it seems like being gay may very well open you up. It allows you to better understand that people are different. That things can be looked at from different perspectives and still be right. What do you think?

Absolutely. When you’re different, it’s natural to be more sympathetic to others considered different. It evens helps when entertaining ideas that are different and outside the mainstream. Perhaps that’s why throughout history some of the most creative people have been gay.

When I was assigned to the NSA while in the Army, they made it clear that they weren’t automatically disqualifying anyone just because they were gay or used drugs recreationally. Code breaking is a creative art that requires thinking outside the norm. They knew that creative people included gays and pot smokers. All they required was that whatever your particular “abnormality”, you disclose it fully to your friends and family so that no opportunity for blackmail existed. That was the motivation for my coming out to my family and friends. Everyone already knew I smoked pot.

I want to apologize if anything came off insensitive and for the poor witting. I am not proof reading this because it is a little difficult for me to send this and if I proof read it I am afraid I will change my mind. Also, I happen to be a bad writer an a little drunk (which is no condition to be in while writing such an inquiry). So I am sorry for any difficulty. Also, it might be well to say I am far younger than you and thus will not mind you scolding me nor will I mind you talking down to me in your response. You can also write it as a lecture if you wish or any way you might want.

I actually applaud your desire to satisfy your curiosity first hand instead of settling for second hand information. If I had a question about coding a website, I’d be more inclined to ask someone who has done that very thing rather than read a book (that may have been written by someone with no practical knowledge) or take any old Joe’s opinion on the subject. Further, it does me good to reexamine my attitudes and beliefs now and then. Whenever I’m asked about my orientation I have another reason to reevaluate my thoughts and opinions. I’m glad you asked. I just hope my answers are sufficient. If not, feel free to ask further questions.

No need to ask if they belong, they’ve been there all along. My first gay experience was in the Army. We have served, fought and died alongside our straight brothers in arms as long as America has been going to war.

Randy Shilts, the author of “Conduct Unbecoming,” knows otherwise. He has written a convincing and readable narrative on gay life in uniform, from Vietnam to the Persian Gulf. Mr. Shilts, a national correspondent for The San Francisco Chronicle and the author of “And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the AIDS Epidemic,” supports his new book with interviews of more than a thousand people, including military personnel (150 still in uniform, their identities shielded), their families and lawyers. Under the Freedom of Information Act, he gained access to nearly 15,000 pages of material about investigations, courts-martial and policy-making concerning homosexuals in the armed forces. So he delivers some surprising information. He writes:

“Today, gay soldiers jump with the 101st Airborne, wear the Green Beret of the Special Forces and perform top-level jobs in the ‘black world’ of covert operations. Gay Air Force personnel have staffed missile silos in North Dakota, flown the nuclear-armed bombers of the Strategic Air Command and navigated Air Force One. Gay sailors dive with the Navy Seals, tend the nuclear reactors on submarines and teach at the Naval War College. A gay admiral commanded the fleet assigned to one of the highest-profile military operations of the past generation. The homosexual presence on aircraft carriers is so pervasive that social life on the huge ships for the past 15 years has included gay newsletters and clandestine gay discos. Gay Marines guard the President in the White House honor guard and protect U.S. embassies around the world.”

“Conduct Unbecoming” is equally revealing about the difficulties encountered by lesbians in uniform. We learn that women face even greater discrimination than men. When accused of homosexuality, some women “prove” themselves not to be lesbians by having sex with men. Those who will not acquiesce to sexual advances, often by superior officers, are routinely accused of being lesbian and are liable to discharge. Anti-gay regulations have encouraged sexual harassment, the author reports. The records and interviews with lesbians indicate that military commands are far more inclined to investigate homosexuals than to investigate sexual harassment of women.

Mr. Shilts shows the military attitudes by citing the language of Army regulations: “Homosexuality is a manifestation of a severe personality defect, which appreciably limits the ability of such individuals to function effectively in a military environment.” Navy regulations: “Homosexuals and other sexual deviates are military liabilities who cannot be tolerated in a military organization.” And the Air Force: “Participation in a homosexual act, or proposing or attempting to do so, is considered a very serious misbehavior.”

The official language invites a reader to think about such misbehavior as the Tailhook scandal last year, when airmen assaulted servicewomen. That case was first covered up and excused as merely a boys-will-be-boys incident until the women pressed charges and the details were exposed in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

The fact is that especially in wartime the military has routinely winked at homosexuality and looked the other way. Figures supplied by Mr. Shilts show that discharges for homosexuality drop under combat conditions, when danger was equally shared and sexual orientation was the least of the military’s problems. From World War II to Desert Storm, regulations banning homosexuals were sidestepped. A vast gay subculture existed within the American military stationed in Vietnam; gay bars on what was Tu Do Street when the city was called Saigon were well known to soldiers on leave. Just as the heterosexual G.I.’s quest for diversion was institutionalized into a circuit of bars and brothels, so was the homosexual’s search for a good time. (Source)

Read more about pioneering journalist Randy Shilts here.

I’ve often been told by Christians that if it weren’t for god enforcing his morals on humans, the world would go to hell in a moment. They contend mankind is basically self-centered, egotistical, intolerant and all the other negative connotations they hang on humanity. Essentially Christians don’t like humans, don’t trust humans and believe that the vast majority of us are evil, just waiting for our chance to kill, rape and pillage (like they did for much of history).

They like to portray themselves as compassionate. They fail to extend what little compassion they do muster to anyone beyond their own. Here’s an obvious case of Christians willing to sacrifice compassion in order to preserve intolerance, bigotry and ignorance.

RALEIGH, N.C. — The chief sponsor of an anti-bullying bill for the public schools remains hopeful that a negotiated compromise can pass the Legislature before it adjourns for the year.

Democratic Rep. Rick Glazier of Cumberland County delayed a final vote on the House measure scheduled for Wednesday until Thursday.

Glazier said the delay was needed while bill supporters attempt to persuade more lawmakers in the Senate, where there aren’t enough votes for passage.

Why would a bill aimed at reducing bullying on school grounds have trouble passing? Could there be any sensible and sane objection to making the schoolyard safer for the children?

No. But that hasn’t stopped the Christians.

Christian conservatives have been lobbying hard against the measure. They’re unhappy because the bill lists characteristics of a person who could be susceptible to bullying. That lists includes sexual orientation, which opponents say if approved would advance special protections for gay citizens.

(Source)

Mark Creech, executive director the Christian Action League of North Carolina, warns there is a “hidden agenda” behind the bill to negate what he describes as the “strongest voices of criticism” against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender behavior in society.

“The evil of the legislation,” says Creech, “is that it elevates sexual orientation and gender identity or expression on the same levels with the enumerations of race, color, ancestry, national origin, gender, physical appearance, mental, physical or sensory disability — which are all immutable or unchangeable characteristics.”

Creech contends that homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, cross-dressing, and other alternate sexual behaviors are not immutable or unchangeable.

Hemant has a nice write up about this with more quotes from this shining example of Christian charity.

First, let me say I’m not all that sure we need to have legislation to stop bullying. Have parents abdicated all responsibility for the upbringing of their children? Do the schools have to be forced by the threat of legal penalties to police their campuses for antisocial behaviors? Some degree of bullying such as teasing and other non-physical petty harassments can have positive effects on a developing personality. Adversity builds character, right?

Here’s my solution. Let bullying go on, or at least don’t involve the government in discouraging it.

At the same time, let’s start teaching all the gay kids martial arts. It’s an excellent physical exercise, good mental training and doesn’t involve religion. A positive side-effect will be the ability of gay kids to seriously kick the shit out of the next little christlychild who thinks it’s cute to bully fagettes. All the little atheist kids are welcome as well. Muslim kids, you’re on your own. Your god is no better than theirs. You’re conditioned to be as intolerant as the Christians.

Nope, just godless little queerlettes learning how to stand up for themselves. You godlovers think your persecuted now. Just wait until our “younger generation” figures out they don’t have to put up with your holier-than-thou crap anymore. It won’t be long before we learn to give as good as we get.

Sometimes respect has to be taught. You’ll grow old and die if you wait for the hardcore Christians to respect anything but their own dogma.

That’s why I say there must be a god. It could only be due to his moral influence on folks like Creech that it’s not legal to simply shoot gays on sight in this country. Is Creech short for Cretin? Here’s video for you, dude.

Christians often point out that atheists, primarily those in the U.S., tend to criticize their religion and rarely comment on other faiths.

I don’t dispute this, but the reason should be obvious.  In America Christianity is the majority religious belief.  When I discuss computers, I will most often refer to PCs running Microsoft Windows.  That’s the dominant player in that field.  Likewise, when discussing religion, I most often refer to Christianity as that’s the largest movement within my frame of reference.

Still, I wouldn’t want the Muslims to feel ignored, so allow me to post this image as an acknowledgment that Islam is every bit as nonsensical as Christianity.

Heathen Queer has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

If you’re interested in this topic, I urge you to check out the other blogs listed. Add them to your RSS reader. Comment on them often. Get involved.

No, that’s far too mild. Jesus most likely didn’t exist outside myth and stories, but his believers are real…real psychopaths.

I won’t try to recount the entire drama here. PZ Myers, in his wonderfully popular blog Pharyngula, recounted the story of Webster Cook:

Webster Cook says he smuggled a Eucharist, a small bread wafer that to Catholics symbolic of the Body of Christ after a priest blesses it, out of mass, didn’t eat it as he was supposed to do, but instead walked with it.

After receiving death threats from these loving followers of the Prince of Peace, Cook returned the wafer. End of story? Not by a long shot.

Myers updates reaction to his post:

So far today, I have received 39 pieces of personal hate mail of varying degrees of literacy, all because I was rude to a cracker. Four of them have included death threats, a personal one day record. Thirty-four of them have demanded that I be fired. Twenty-five of them have told me to desecrate a copy of the Koran, instead, or in some similar way offend Muslims, because — in a multiplicity of ironic cluelessness — apparently only some religious icons must be protected, and I would only offend Catholics because they are all so nice that none of them would wish me harm. I even have one email that says I should be fired, that the author would like to kill me, and that I only criticize because Catholics are so gentle and kind.

Oh, and of course, the university president’s office has also received lots of mail demanding my immediate ouster (keep in mind, though…Catholics are no threat to anyone at all.) I don’t know how much, but since Donohue published the president’s email address and not mine, I imagine it’s much greater than what I’ve seen. Those lovely Dark Age fanatics at the Catholic League have started a write-in campaign to start up an inquisition.

So no poll-crashing today. Instead, I would appreciate it if you would write a short note to President Robert Bruininks in support (he’s going to hate me for this). I have to ask for a few constraints, though: only do so if you are willing to sign a real name to it — most of the complaint mail I’m getting uses fake names, making it much less persuasive — and that, unlike the religious screeds I’m seeing, you take the time to proofread and send him something that at least looks like a high school graduate wrote it, which will put you way above the level of the hate mail. Be polite and rational, too!

If you really want to impress, send him regular mail at this address:

President Robert H. Bruininks
202 Morrill Hall
100 Church Street S.E.
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455

Bill Donohue has a loud, braying voice, and he’s already trying to stir up a witch hunt. We need a counter-campaign from the secular community. (Source)

Christians want us to respect their beliefs while at the same time they show they have no respect for their beliefs themselves. They hardly represent a peaceful and loving faith. What happened to “humble and meek”? Have none of these people read their own Bible? They should welcome persecution.

What the Christians who replied to Myers’ posts have shown us is that believing in a god does nothing to change a person’s basic character. Their “faith” is nothing more than a cover for their humanity, and their humanity is of the lowest form. They threaten death and eternal punishment over the treatment of a cracker. They are irrational and unreasonable. They make hyperbole an art form.

Why do we bother arguing against religion if we don’t believe in it? Because it abuses the power of its majority in this country to demand respect for its ridiculous contentions. It takes itself too seriously, and on behalf of the part of humanity that rejects the nonsensical until it proves itself sensible, it must be brought back to reality. It needs humbling, it obviously is incapable of being humble on its own.

If you, too, don’t buy the bullshit, take a moment to voice your support for Myers by blogging about this topic yourself. Link back here. Let’s expose their hypocrisies, let’s not allow them to get away with the presumption of Christianity. Keep the light shining, don’t leave a single dark corner for them to hide in. The ridiculous begs ridicule.