Archive | Opinion RSS feed for this section

Ten Commandments for the Atheist

5 Nov

Guest post by, Eldtirchfan

So recently I find my mind turning back to that Star Trek TNG episode “Who Watches the Watchers,” where the primitive people mistake the Enterprise crew for gods, then predictably start killing one another to please said gods. When Picard and Co have one of their conferences there’s a moment where someone suggests a stabilizing influence might take place if they play along and hand down some commandments.

Which itself got me thinking. The Ten Commandments are oft touted as the best example of morality there is. I beg to differ, but if I were in a situation where I had to impose a bunch of rules on a primitive society, what would they be?

I’m talking about a one-shot visit where I’d never be back to explain or interpret, and the rules themselves couldn’t be questioned.

I tried for ten commandments, but I could only think of four:

1)      Minimize harm

2)      Question, learn and discover

3)      Individual freedom and self-determination is the highest good

4)      Change is inevitable, but it can be shaped, for well or ill

I thought of tossing in “Ponies and ice cream for everyone!” just to round stuff out, but decided to play it straight.

You might notice these are bit on the vague side and open to interpretation. That was deliberate. I left lots of room for philosophical thought and debate as to how these could get applied in real life. For the first one, I didn’t put ‘do no harm’, because that’s impossible. The prohibitions against lying, stealing and murder are covered in 2 and 3, which I think give a more positive message.

Any suggestions on further commandments, please add in the comments.

The Perfection of Islam

29 Aug

By Eldritchfan

If you will forgive the lapse into poetic language, our enemy was born when those cave men huddled around their campfire heard the crack of thunder and the flash of lightning, and that first shaman stood up, pointed at the clouds and said ‘I know why that happened, and what the gods are telling us.’

Most likely, the gods were telling them to go kill all the residents of the neighboring cave and take their stuff.

Of course, religion has changed a lot since then: it’s gotten more refined.

Earliest man saw the world in anthropomorphic terms and so postulated agency everywhere. Their narratives represent attempts to place random events in a rational framework. It also represented the flawed base assumption that humanity and its actions were central to the universe and so projected the fasces principle as cosmic law.

With the advent of writing, mere oratory recital was set down and preserved. With that came the concept of scripture – that certain narratives were sacred and unalterable solid ground in this ever-shifting world.

With developments in technology, it was only a matter of time before another concept arose: that of empire, with a common language and roads to unite diverse lands. However, there was also the need to unite imperial subjects culturally with a sense of common identity. The best method of doing this? Religion.

In the case of Rome, the religion was Christianity, which outlasted Rome. And you know what? It could’ve been worse.

Christianity’s worst traits were mitigated and its doctrines influenced by classical thought and beliefs. Even as classical thought helped rationalize those myths and Greek culture and common language and Roman roads allowed for the spread of a single religion over an enormous area.

Furthermore, Christianity’s early status as an oppressed religion meant it could not be overtly violent. The brutal conquest of Christ the King had to be cloaked in metaphor or regulated to some far-future, near-mythical dream plane.

I despise religion in all its flavors, but in a contest between Christianity and Islam I am forced to favor Christianity, not because it is perfect, but because it is flawed and these flaws have carried unintended consequences.

(more…)

Thank you, Christians

29 Jul

If you follow the atheist blogosphere at all, you’ve probably seen the story about the American Atheists’ lawsuit to keep a cross out of the official 9/11 museum, ostensibly, because the museum is being created with government money. I’m not going to weigh in on that so much, partially because I really haven’t had time to think about it, and partially because I’ve been known to be rather wishy-washy when it comes to cross memorials in the past.

Instead, I’m going to comment on comments — specifically, comments left by our loving and peaceful Christ followers on the Fox News Facebook page after Fox broadcast the story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

These are just a few that I grabbed off the American Atheist website, and to be fair, whoever is in charge of the Fox News Facebook has been scrambling to scrub the page clean of these comments, but they just weren’t fast enough in this case.

I’m sure plenty of other bloggers have weighed in on this topic, and I really don’t have much else to add other than to say, thank you, to these followers of Jesus.

Thank you for confirming what many atheists think (or at least what I think), about you and your religion. The peace and love of Christ you profess on Sunday is nothing more than a thin veneer used to hide your hate, bigotry and lust for violence. If I may paraphrase your Christ, you truly are nothing more than whitewashed tombs, pretty on the outside, but inside full of everything unclean.

Thank you for reminding us that, even as we just watched in horror the aftermath of an attempted crusade, that we still have very much to fear from the religions of peace right here in America.

And please, spare me the No True Christian argument, okay? I’m not interested in watching your mental gymnastics while you try to whitewash every act of violence committed by men of piety through the centuries in the name of your particular guy in the sky.

And finally, here’s a message to all of those who posted the death threats, for those who will post in the future, and for those who will eventually act on their hate:

I get it. You want us gone. Well guess what? I want you gone. I want  your religion eradicated off the face of the earth, and not just Christianity, all of them (except for maybe the Jainists, they seem pretty laid back.)

But here’s the difference. You want us gone by way of guns, bombs, knives, stones, swords and whatever else you can get your mitts on. I want you gone by way of enlightenment. I want people to become better educated and to think and inquire to the point that they shed their faith because they have a better understanding of the world around them.

I want children to be raised with inquisitive minds that constantly seek truth and knowledge as opposed to having dogma and superstition imposed on them from birth.

Now I’m not so naieve to think that all of the violence in the world would stop if religion ceased to exist. However, I do think that it would be one less justification used for why we brutalize our fellow humans. And the more we can whittle down that list of justifications, the closer we’ll get to a peaceful coexistence.

Compare and Contrast

20 Jun

Guest post by Eldritchfan.Earlier I gave my response to the argument of reasoned faith based on the basis of a single all-powerful entity*. Let’s alter a few of those basic premises.

Let’s assume there are many entities with conflicting agendas, but none of them are all-powerful and must work together to get stuff done.

Now, let’s say these entities are of another order of being than people and can’t communicate with words. Well, in that event we can assume that any messages about reality they have for us would be inscribed on the natural world.

The moon swells and shrinks like a woman giving birth? It also kind of looks like a bow being drawn and loosed? Obviously someone’s trying to tell us about a mother/archer type goddess we should be acknowledging to get rid of the bad things in our lives.

The sun gets far and close with the seasons? Sounds to me like all those sun god assumptions have something going for them.

People see heroes fighting monsters in the constellations? Obviously the stuff is really happening on another plane of reality.

Never mind the argument that it’s all just rocks and balls of gas, shadows and reflections. These hypothetical entities (just call ‘em gods) would’ve surmised what kind of intelligent creatures would develop and how they’d see the universe, so the gods would reasonably be expected to position stars and moons in an arrangement to convey meaning to us.

So then, by a change of premises that is not difficult at all to imagine, animist paganism is every bit as reasonable as Judaism and Christianity, and by monotheism’s own standards, Mormonism and Islam are more reasonable.

*More specifically, against those who indulge in rationalizing their ideologies while sheltered by secular Constitutional law, while participating in the destruction of that very shelter.

Reasoned Faith

20 Jun


So the other day I ran across this gem:

I’m not going to comment on the gum-smacking guy, but I’ve got a response for that other fine specimen of religiosity.

Reasoned faith she says. So innocuous and mild. I’ve got another word for this practice however: justification. Here’s another: rationalization. One more: making excuses.

It is my passionate conviction based on every piece of evidence I’ve seen that there are few more dangerous practices in our world that ‘reasoned faith’. To put reason in the service of faith is to put the tools for finding truth in the service of a lie.

The persecution of ‘witches’ was reasoned faith. Take as your premise that there is an invisible realm that corresponds to your revealed doctrines and you can justify literally anything.

As is explained in the book Demon Lovers: Witchcraft, Sex and the Crisis of Belief, the witchfinders had developed their methodology into a bizarre parody of science. TheMalleus Maleficarum, the insane doctrines of Catholicism, John Calvin’s Geneva, the lunacy that even now flourishes across the world from mechanics who try to cast demons out of motors to praying over a sick child instead of using medicine. All are examples of reasoned faith.

The search for truth is a path of discovery, but to the faithful, truth is simply another word for ideology. Reasoned faith is not an honest search for answers, but the rejection of all answers save the one you start with.

To put reason in the service of faith to yoke life to the service of death.

But in spite of all my criticism, I admit this believer raises a good argument, one I’ve heard before: the perceived physical and chemical constants of the universe* could have been violated in a specific case or else altered altogether in the distant past, and people today would have no way to experiment and determine this.

Now that’s a good point, and one demanding a serious response. Here is mine:

This may be the case, and if these constants were and are indeed subject to change and violation, we would have no way of determining reality. Now I take it the lady in the vid presumes such is the work of a single, all powerful and benevolent entity, so our only way to perceive reality would be by relying completely on revealed scripture handed down from said almighty being.**

But, what would be the most reasonable expectation for the transmission of said knowledge from an all-powerful being? Multiple sources given to many people decades and centuries apart, constantly reinterpreted by later additions until a Roman emperor shouts “Stop! This is it and we’re not adding anything else!”

No, the most reasonable expectation would be one book, given to one man, in his own lifetime.

And in fact there are two religions that make this exact claim: Mormonism and Islam.

So by the standard of reasoned faith based on the presumption of a single all powerful god, Mormonism and Islam are far more reasonable than Judaism and Christianity. They are the faiths that claim their books are literal copies of those in heaven.

No point in talking about the bizarre and destructive claims made by those two faiths. Our sin-tainted senses and minds are unable to perceive what is likely and what is good.

So then, what would be genuine proof? For Jesus himself to have written the gospels, and simply have his followers preserve and spread them. If he was God incarnate that would have been first on the agenda.

Or how about this: when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles and they could suddenly speak different languages, instead of preaching why not start writing Bibles right then and there, all at once and in every language the world would ever know.That would be a reasonable expectation. An entity that can flood the world and halt the sun and raise the dead could certainly write some books.

But none of that happened.

I write this in all seriousness. This is now my standard argument. The whole of Christian belief and all the accompanying apologetics can be dismissed on that basis alone.

So don’t talk to me of reasoned, rationalized, excuses-making faith. It is the use of reason to destroy reason, and when reason sleeps the monsters are brought forth. Follow this path to its logical conclusion and you will soon reach to unadmitted, unexamined, unconscious motive and goal of all who speak of reasoned faith.

 

*I do not call such perceived constants ‘laws’ to avoid semantic confusion. As the faithful constantly point out, laws imply a lawgiver.

**And that’s real aim. Once it is established that reality is impossible to ever comprehend, you’ve reduced humanity to the level of the savage who must grovel to vast unknown forces and can only submit for the hope of the false borrowed strength from a supernatural source. The advocates of reasoned faith would gladly do it in the name of preserving and advancing their meme.

 


Thank you, Mr. Camping

26 May

Guest post by Eldritchfan

Like many, I watched the rapture antics and the buildup leading to May 21. I was actually one of the few not to hear the news until two weeks before, so it took me by surprise when heralds began popping up left and right. I confess to being a little uneasy, feeling as if a lot of people were in the know and I was odd man out.

Then I learned the movement was more Astroturf than grass roots.

Still, instead of contempt I experienced a sort of respect for Camping and his followers. These people knew what they believed in and they had staked their reputations, their property, in some cases even their lives on their conclusion. This was not some unknown future date or heavenly plane of existence. The results would be imminent.

This deserved serious consideration.

I’ll admit, I even weakened for a moment. Could so many people be so sure and so wrong about something?* I mean, there’s been a lot of tsunamis, quakes and dead birds, could it really all be coincidental?**

Then I found myself thinking: well what if I took Pascal’s Wager and got myself saved, just in case?

Of course, a moment’s critical thought quickly disabused me of any such possibility. I couldn’t ‘just get saved’ or ‘just believe’. There’s no ‘just’ about it. To believe in a savior means to believe in the necessity of salvation. This means believing in original sin, a literal Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc, etc . In short, one must accept the narrative and physical and historical worldview in its entirety. I simply couldn’t do that on faith, and by the time incontrovertible evidence was presented, it would be too late.

And the truly amazing part of it was, for a few brief moments I was so paralyzed with fear that neither the insanity nor the injustice of it mattered.

Their book says that fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. It’s certainly the beginning of something, but I wouldn’t call it ‘wisdom.’

Ah but I almost forgot, when I finally accepted that if Camping was right, I was utterly wrong and so consigned to eternal torment without rest, then my mind then turned to my loved ones. I know almost for a fact that none of them are properly saved and so Heaven is practically impossible.

Oddly enough, I simply cannot see any justice in this. If God wants to collect up His saved, fine, but why destroy the world and consign the rest of us to hell? For that matter, when He committed omnicide in Noah’s time, why kill all those animals too? Why not just will everyone but Noah and his kin to keel over dead?

It certainly brought the amorality and nihilism of religion front and center.

Thank you Mr. Camping, for utterly destroying any possibility that I might ever love your supernatural tyrant.

But there’s more: Camping and Co also unintentionally served as a sort of sounding board for the religious mind. A canary down the well if you will, or a few lone landmines prematurely exploding and thus making you more aware of the minefield just under the surface.

You notice how when Christians objected to the Camping movement, it’s always based on the ‘no one can know’ line and no other aspect of it. It puts me in the mind of ‘moderate’ Muslims who, when confronted with the fact that their faith mandates sharia law as the supreme law of the land, don’t so much deny as demur: well, say they, there’s different{i} interpretations{/i} of sharia law.

They can’t deny their faith demands supernaturally-imposed law rather than democratic law. Just as Christians can’t deny that this is indeed their view of reality.

Thank you Mr. Camping, for shining a spotlight in this dark corner of the Christian mind, so rarely acknowledged.

But as I said, their commitment was deserving of my respect and serious consideration, so I stuck with their premise. During the week leading up to May 21 I did exactly what Jesus warned against: I went to work and threw myself into my job, so that the things of this world would seem real. All the while I envisioned the fabric of the world breaking apart, meteors falling from the sky, fire erupting from the ground, etc.

I spent the day itself quietly, with loved ones, and you know what? It really gave me a sense of the value of life due to its very fragility. Seriously contemplating the end of everything made the problems I normally face seem not very insurmountable at all.

Thank you Mr. Camping, for reminding me of the value of life.

Finally, as I checked news on the Net for word of the Rapture non-event, I also scanned the headlines immediately beneath. They made for some sobering reading. Wars, bombings, political uncertainty, economic woes, disease and death.

The world is a scary place. I began to feel more sympathy for people who accept Camping’s view of reality. A deterministic, authoritarian worldview can be comforting when it means you only have one choice to make – to believe – and that choice not only matters, but has cosmic significance.

Please look at my earlier post ‘It’s all part of the plan’ for further thoughts on that aspect of religious psychology and human psychology in general.

A lot of Camping’s followers emerged from this business ruined emotionally and financially. One woman even attempted to slit her own children’s throats to spare them***, but personally I found the experience held some value. It tested my convictions, caused me to analyze my beliefs, and reminded me to appreciate life and I hope it will spur me to make the best of my time in this world.

So thank you, Mr. Camping, you’ve earned my gratitude.

But if you utter one word about tornadoes in the Midwest, then I hope someone punches you in the face.

*Answer: Yes. They can. It happens all the time.

**See above asterisk.

***But ultimately this behavior is still more beneficial than that of groups like the Family, who amass money and power in this world and believe they are destined to rule until its undetermined end. I would prefer those guys take the Camping route.

Hitler and the Book of Revelations

11 Mar

In his book, “Terror and Liberalism” Paul Berman gives an interesting analysis of the Book of Revelations and its impact on the totalitarian regimes of World War II and beyond, including the Nazis and Communists as well as the Christian fascist movements in the rest of Europe.

In short, he argues that totalitarians can find a handy blueprint in the Bible. New Testament, not Old.

We have a city of chosen people under attack by corruption within and enemies without. It is hopeless. All is lost.

Into that breach there steps the Leader.

The Leader is possessed by more than human destiny and will. The Leader embodies the fears and deepest yearnings of the multitude and enunciates them with passion and eloquence. The Leader shows no doubt. No hesitation.

And the Leader is irrational. Proudly irrational. Magnificently irrational.

The Leader gives the chosen people an enemy to blame. There’s no shortage of those.

Under the Leader’s guidance, the chosen people cleanse the land and fight off the foemen, and establish a single Party state where no divergence from the One True Way is permitted.

This was the vision that guided every totalitarian movement of the mid-Twentieth Century. It’s a vision that could guide even non-Christians.

If the Rat in the Hat can argue that Native Americans were unknowingly yearning for Christ in their legends,

http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/05/23/pope-benedict-xvi-native-americans-longed-for-christianity-genocide-slavery.htm

then theologically why can’t Hitler have been unconsciously reaching for Christ-like behavior in his cleansing and purging of the Fatherland?

Hagee’s already argued that he was God’s instrument, why not take it a step further?

Food for thought, especially on these shores when groups like The Family are infiltrating both the elephants and the donkeys with the aim of making them ideologically indistinguishable. Single party state.The future isn’t looking bright.

Theologians and Thugs

10 Mar

Guest post by Eldritchfan.

Does Christianity allow war?

A straightforward enough question, with no clear answer.

A believer might toss out the first and most obvious retort, “Thou shall not kill”. That settles it right?

Wrong.

The commandment is actually “Thou shall not murder,” and there’s a difference in meanings wide as an abyss.

If you want to try sticking to the New Testament, there’s not much help there. Even if you argue that “I’m coming with a sword” and “Sell your stuff to buy weapons” and “Bring your slaves to me so I can kill them” is a metaphor there’s still “vengeance is mine,” which doesn’t dispense with the vengeance, only defers it.

Our hypothetical meek and mild pacifist would also have to discount Christ’s supposed appearance before Constantine with the message to conquer under his sign, an event that predates the compilation of the Bible. On what grounds do you discount that? Pointing out Constantine’s decadence and cynical use of religion gets you no points. Divine revelation has supposedly been bestowed on scumbags aplenty and if this latter day David was one of the elect, his behavior doesn’t matter.

And you better accept Christianity’s warlike beginnings, because that’s how the faith was spread over Europe and the Western world, and you keep pointing out all the millions who subscribe to your belief.

You might argue that Jesus didn’t seek to make war, and to some extent that’s true. He also lacked the terrestrial force of arms to enforce his will. Muhammad too was non-violent at first, and I dearly wish ‘ol Mo had got himself martyred early on in his prophetic career, before the collective institution of jihad came to be.

And Paul Berman gives an interesting analysis of the Book of Revelations and its influence on the totalitarian regimes of World War II and beyond, including the Nazis and communists as well as the Christian fascist movements in the rest of Europe. I’ll follow up with that later.

Now, into the more bellicose realm, if you subscribe to the idea of a just war, then Christendom can declare war on anyone for any reason, since it all depends on your analysis of the situation. There are plenty of Christian rulers who can justify war on the grounds that they are acting in good faith and God would guide their actions. BS Lewis used that dodge himself in “The Screwtape Letters” to excuse Germans who fought for the Nazi cause (by his argument, Holocaust victims would be in Hell and Nazis who sincerely believed in conspiracy theories like the Elders of Zion would be in Heaven).

There’s a school of thought that says you shouldn’t fight unless the enemy tries to force you to give up your faith. By that argument, then, was the Battle of Tours where Charles “The Hammer” Martel blunted the forces of jihad and turned the tide against Islamic domination a just war? That battle is celebrated to this day (in some places) as the salvation of Christianity.

But shouldn’t the Christian army have tossed aside their weapons, dropped to their knees, bowed their heads and awaited their chains? That would have been Christ-like.That would have been martyrdom for themselves and the entire Christian population of Europe.

Islam would not have forcibly converted anyone, but rather made them dhimmi. That would get rid of all the false converts who joined the faith for power and social prestige, and the dhimmi Christians would have plenty of opportunities to try and convert members of the Muslim overlords’ households where they slaved away, and to be killed for it as their storied martyrs were. Perpetual martyrdom!

Hey, here’s some theology for you: maybe Islam was God’s instrument, sent into Christendom for just that purpose. Makes as much sense as Hagee’s claim that Hitler was God’s instrument.

Gasp! Islam was God’s instrument! Charlie the Hammer defied God! War against Islam isn’t just!

You better surrender.

I’m trying to be serious here, as befits a serious subject, but it’s hard not to slip into Poe-level farce when examining this excrement.

I don’t know much about this crazy funhouse world and humanity is still incomprehensible to me, but this if nothing else I’ve learned: If you eliminate reason, force is all that’s left.

If someone says: This is the way it is and the way it must be because it’s ordained by a supernatural power and all else is sin, no debate allowed, and my only counterargument is that my holy book says that somewhere, sometime, someone will disagree with something within these pages and when that happens, don’t listen to them!

Moreover, the very fact that they are disagreeing (as I prophesized) is proof I’m right!

Oh yeah, and God’s guiding my actions so I don’t have to reasonably set forth my policies: it’ll all work out in the future or hereafter.

If someone says that, and acts on it, then sooner or later somebody’s gonna reach for a gun.

The Adoptive Tribe

3 Feb

Guest post by Eldritchfan

So I happened to catch this little tidbit of news while glancing through the latest news from richarddawkins.net

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians

I shared the initial reaction of many fellow nonbelievers to this characteristic blend of inclusive exclusivity. To sum up my opinion: proclamations of faith are all well and good, but keep it apart from your role as an elected official. In short, yet another blow to the separation of church and state.

I also did a quick scan of the comments. To give a standing answer to a couple:

To those Christians who applaud the governor for proclaiming where he stands and speaking what he believes, if he had embraced Islam instead of Christianity and welcomed all to be brothers in the ummah of dar al Islam you’d be rolling around on the floor and calling for his head, we all know it, so shut your hypocritical faces.

To the commenter who said the governor couldn’t separate the Christian part of his life from any other since Christianity should be total and all encompassing, thanks for admitting that Christianity is a totalitarian ideology and exposing your culture of monolithic arrogance.

Now that the vitriol’s outta the way, I’d like to explore another aspect of this incident because it represents something that’s not so bad. Or at least it represents religion’s hijacking of something not so bad.

In context, Bentley was trying to reassure African American constituents of his sense of shared kinship, expressing something Lee Harris called the adoptive tribe concept, as opposed to the blood-tribe concept.

In the early days of humanity, in-groups were tribal and your place was made by blood. We see this trend through history to the family business of today. The ideas of dynasty and alliance by marriage flows from this concept. The notion of blood tribe versus that of adoptive tribe has long been an issue in the development of civilization: in Athenian democracy, only the child of two full-blooded citizens could be a citizen.

Yet as closed societies became open (to use Karl Popper’s term) and civilization was born, these tribes became aware of each other and it began to occur to many that other people were…people.

Thus they stumbled upon this subset of the fasces principle, the adoptive tribe concept, wherein people are united not by accident of birth, but by common belief.

The earliest expressions of this was probably the gang or ‘free companions’ (brigands) and other outcasts, violent or non-violent, who had to form bonds with each other to survive. Other manifestations we’re familiar with include armies, sports teams, corporations, and of course religions.

The most successful religions – Buddhism, Christianity and Islam – were the ones that embraced and were to a large extent shaped by the adoptive tribe concept.

The advantages are obvious: a membership not limited by the group’s fertility rate. A fellowship based on merit rather than accident of birth. A high degree of commitment and dedication among members who actively chose this group and were accepted by the same.

The results are clear: as Orwell pointed out, adoptive organizations like the Catholic Church outlasted many a dynasty that fell due to a weak heir.

This led to some beneficial results. There was now an argument against the Roman Empire’s policy of obliterating conquered peoples: they were potential Christians*. Likewise the argument probably saved a few lives of subject peoples during Western colonialism.

To give some perspective, Nazism followed the blood tribe concept. If Hitler had possessed nuclear weapons, he’d have used them without hesitation on the Russians and others to the east, but probably not on the British since by his reckoning they were Aryans and potential Nazis.

The other fascist powers that glorified the nation-state would be ruthless to foreigners. Communists though, who reject the nation-state and aim for its dissolution, saw potential comrades across all borders.

Likewise, Islam would have an argument against nuking a country: they’re potential Muslims**.

As you can tell, this has had some problems and a lot of excess baggage. Being spared because someone recognizes you as raw material isn’t very heartwarming, but sometimes you take what you can get, and for most of human history, that’s the best we’ve had.

But the adoptive tribe concept is what made civilization possible. If only those of us who are united by a desire for individual freedom and secular democracy could match the passion of Bentley and his like.

*And they could be trained to accept subservience and await their rewards in Heaven. Still, better than genocide. Didn’t help you much if you were a heretic, Jew or mentally ill and branded a witch, but it was a start. It also depends on interpretation, as evidenced by Pastor Hitler-was-God’s-instrument Hagee’s notion of Jewish souls as fundamentally different than Christians’. A sort of racism of the spirit.

**Unless the nut with the nuke goes the route of ‘God’s will be done, God’s guiding me, kill em all and God’ll know His own.

Pat Condell on Why Your Faith is a Joke

16 Dec