THE AFTER-MATTHEW

"The church is always trying to get other people to reform; it might not be a bad idea to reform itself a little, by way of example."
--Mark Twain








In my last post, "FUDGE PACKER," I wrote about my frustrations in dealing with my Mormon friends and family over the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. In my frustration, I changed my Facebook profile picture to a satirical photo of an anti-gay Mormon leader, Boyd K. Packer, whose words have contributed to prejudice against homosexuals which has forced many gay Mormon teens to live on the streets and, in some cases, to suicide.

The conversation which has resulted from my picture has been exhausting and frustrating. In the instances where I was misrepresented and stereotyped by people I care about, which were many, I became angry. Like, "screaming at the top of my lungs while riding my motorcycle to work" angry. But amid the madness and anger I was also bolstered by the supportive words of many people.

I want to share some of the more positive comments I received, some through private messages for fear of a similarly deteriorating conversation on their own pages.

[friend from high school]:

"Matt you are awesome, from the time I first got to know you, you are a hell of a wrestler and even more, a hell of a man! I agree with you who are we to judge how another human being lives their lives"

[friend]:
"Thank you Matt! You're what's right with the world"

[friend from high school]:
"Matt, may I just say, your bravery is remarkable. Thank you."

[same person, private message]:
"I need share my sincere gratitude for you. You get it. Life, God and all that we are here for. I never really knew you before as young people, but I am so glad to know you now. I guess I didn't understand me either then. Sad to see him say he think he knew me in high school...and to see him be a victim of circumstance. You truly have remarkable things to say and I've shared them with my Wife tonight. Keep it up friend."

[friend from BYU]:

"Matt! This pic is genius! You are hilarious. It's the perfect mix of pointed and poignant!"

[friend from BYU, private message]:
"Yeah, I was just reading the great debate and thought it was pretty crazy that he passed away in the middle of it. I'll say the conversation has been interesting. I took the picture more as satire, as you explained but I don't usually get offended (or dissappointed) by facebook posts"

[friend from high school]:
"I have to admit that I have been reading your profile pic discussion and I think it's really nice to see that you are willing to stick with your own beliefs and you provide very sound reasoning to back it up. I know that you are facing a lot of opposition regarding your profile pic choice but the discussions that have resulted from it can only be a good thing. The evolution of change regarding peoples views on these types of subjects is a very slow process but an open dialogue, with well thought responses, will only speed up the process of love and acceptance for all. Thank you."

[a religious leader from my youth]: 

"The whole discussion has definitely been interesting. I tend not to get too wrapped up in stuff like this. I like to keep up on current events, how the world turns and how we are responding to it. I can definitely see both sides of the discussion. I really think that when it comes down to it we have to remember we are children of a loving father in heaven. With that said we also need to remember that we need to treat others as such. - - - I will also add that I have fond memories of my interactions with Matt. He is a hard worker, dedicated and loves his family, friends and (I am sure not much has changed) always shown respect for those around him. In this case some have chosen to be offended. As [F] has said it has opened up a line of discussion and I do believe that in any instance that can not hurt. One of the beautiful things about this country is that you can stand toe to toe and discuss / argue different points of doctrine, policy, law and what have you without retribution. I think that Matt has some points that are worth looking into. I may not agree with his stance but I can respect it and show respect to him as he has owned it. That takes a certain type of courage and shows fortitude. Lastly - I will add that the doctrine has not changed. The attitudes of society and the members of the church has changed in recent years. I think as a whole the members of the church are slowly able to look past peoples short comings and see them as people. I think as a whole we are becoming more honest and less apt to discriminate. I despise the phrase "hate the sin love the sinner". I will in this instance say that the gospel doesn't define people by their struggles. We we define people by who they are. What they do. We all struggle with something. Our daily choices and how we choose to live with/ overcome what pulls us in different directions is what defines us. Are we compassionate, are we accepting, are we humble, are we teachable, are we kind, are we trying to be like Christ? Matt you definitely opened a can of worms, There is still a lot to be discussed with regards to doctrine, culture and how things are changing."

[friend from high school, private message]:
"I'm not a religious person and would not venture to take a stance in the conversations happening regarding your profile picture. However, I've read the threads and would like to commend you. Not just for taking what I believe to be the just position, but for eloquently articulating your thoughts to an audience who disagrees with your sentiment, and maintaining a level of civility while doing so."

[relative, private message]:
"First of all, I friggin love your profile pic. Second of all, thanks for not taking it down. I think it's actually makin a lot of people think, me included. Anyway, it's been pretty epic reading your discussion thread, it's pretty crazy how insensitive a lot of people have been, in the name of good Christianity. I'm not commenting on the picture just because I know [C] doesn't want anything to blow up before the wedding and all... It's taking a lot of will power.... But anyway, just wanted to let you know that I think the pic is some awesome satire and really I appreciate you not backing down. Me personally, I absolutely do not have the guts to post a picture like that. So thanks for saying things a lot of people like me don't have the courage to say. I think you've really shown a lot of character, it's just a Facebook post, but it seems that a lot of your close friends are letting it completely warp their perspective of the quality of individual you must be. I've read nothing but respectful comments from you and obviously it's a subject you've taken time to actually educate yourself on, both sides of the issues. Anyway, this subject hits a personal note with me for a lot of different reasons but seriously, just wanted to say thanks for starting an insightful discussion and absolutely not backing down."

[relative, private message]:
"Nice! Yeah, ive seen a lot of posts of people being offended by being called bigots and use that to say our side is the unloving one. Your picture is about as 'in your face' as his homophobia is. People call out public statements of public figures all the time so its hypocritical to say his church power makes his opinions immune to debate. Plus the picture was relevant to the world views he stood for and opened up a discussion about the significance of his influence. it wasnt just making fun of him for being an old fart or something so its not even a personal ad hominem attack."

I have no regrets.

BONUS MATERIAL:





I posted a link to this on a post a while back, but I feel it applies to this post as well. For those of you who want to see truly offensive satire of religion, click here [WARNING, very graphic. NSFW].

And, I'm just gonna leave this here...:

CONDIMENT COW-TOW

"Don't swallow your moral code in tablet form."
--Christopher Hitchens






I am often flabbergasted by the assertion that the Christian "10 Commandments" are the basis of modern morality (I say "Christian" because Jews tend to not limit themselves to such a finite number of divine mandates). Throughout the United States, courthouses and government buildings are riddled with plaques and monuments advertising everyone's favorite imposing religious screed.


Perhaps my cynicism is kicking in, but it seems that the most vocal proponents of plastering the "10 Commandments" on publicly funded government buildings know very little about the commandments, or what they say. In fact, it is a common gag on late night TV programs to ask random people on the street who profess to be Christians and advocates of the moral superiority of the "10 Commandments" just how many they can name. As you may suspect, most people can't name very many.

Typically, the commands which most people get right also happen to be the ones which likely do not need to be spelled out (i.e. Do not murder, steal, lie, etc.). Few people get the ones which set up the Old Testament god, Yahweh, as a jealous control freak, or equate women with cattle. I wonder why?

I have heard theists claim that every law on the books can be traced back to one of the "10 Commandments." Think about this. They suggest that traffic laws and taxes and divorce suits with messy custody battles all originate from the "10 Commandments."

Before I get to the actual list of commandments, I should point out that not only do the "10 Commandments" say nothing about the things above, but they also fail to address issues like rape, genocide, slavery, and child abuse. Not to mention some of the commandments have absolutely no modern adaptation in US laws, such as keeping the Sabbath.

There is no reason to think that the "10 Commandments" would be so broad and all-inclusive. After all, they are only the first 10 of over 600 Jewish laws in the Old Testament, many of which speak favorably of things like rape, genocide and child abuse. And this is exactly what we would expect from a moral code devised by tribalistic, bloodthirsty, ignorant Palestinians in the Bronze Age.

On to the Big Ten:

1. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Right off the bat, god shows his petty jealousy by at once acknowledging and dismissing the existence of other gods. This is consistent with the ancient Canaanite pantheon of gods, from which Yahweh originated. Conversely, this challenges the proposed omnipotence of Yahweh. Why would an all-powerful being care if mere mortals believe and worship him?

Also, none of the laws in the US constitution have anything to do with the idea that the Old Testament god should be the only god worshiped. Our pluralistic melting-pot of a society simply does not allow this totalitarian ideal.

2. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

"And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

More tribalistic chest-puffing. Some people read this commandment to mean that nothing should be more important to a person than god. But the language indicates to me that Yahweh wants to set himself apart from the other gods of the pantheon. To do this he threatens a curse on those who do not accept him, which will extend at least four generations. Nothing says divine justice and mercy and sound moral reasoning like punishing children for the actions of their great great great grandparents.

It is also worth noting that many Christian religions, including Catholicism and Christian orthodoxy, proudly flaunt their "graven images" (i.e. "pics of dead people"). Such saintly iconography has created issues in the past, in some cases resulting in Protestant splinter groups, and as a result the Catholic Church (I'm not so sure of the Orthodox Church) has changed this commandment. I suppose they can get away with this since they are just making it up anyway.

Again, this command has no modern equivalent in our multicultural society.

3. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

This commandment has bred confusion for centuries. It seems that every denomination has its own interpretation of this verse. I was taught that it decries profanity in general by specifying an improper use of god's name, whatever that means.

Some Jewish sects go so far as to condemn the very utterance of god's name (which in Hebrew is super long and includes every letter in their alphabet). Not only does this have nothing to do with morality or US law, it creates a false sense of morality in much the same way Muslims view pictures of the prophet Muhammad. Some Muslims are willing to kill non-Muslim blasphemers, such as Danish cartoonists and French satirists.

A less common interpretation is that one should not make oaths on god's name which cannot be upheld, because this makes god look silly. Although this reading of the verse makes more textual sense to me than the anti-profanity gibberish I was taught as a child, I still find it absurd.

Oaths make little sense to me. Aside from oaths made in court, and a few other instances, they have been largely abandoned by society in favor of written contracts, which, let's face it, are more effective and easier to regulate.

4. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."

"Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:"

"But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:"

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Further in the 600+ commandments in the Law of Moses it is specified that those who violate this command should be stoned to death. Nothing about this is moral. Not the law, nor the punishment. Whether a person works on Sunday (or Saturday, if they are Jewish or Seventh-Day Adventist, or Friday if they are Muslim) speaks nothing about their morals.

The reasoning behind this law is completely crazy anti-science woo. Because the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe created everything in six days and then took a break, we must follow the same pattern. Why does an all-powerful being need a break? Why don't those who advocate for the moral superiority of the "10 Commandments" work six days a week? It seems to me that they like their weekends as much as anyone.

Of course, there is no equivalent to this commandment in US law. Although, many areas in highly religious states frown on businesses simply being open on Sunday. So much so, in fact, that I know many people who refuse to go to businesses that open on Sunday, even on other days of the week. This is a major selling point for Macy's grocery stores in Utah, for example.

5. "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

As with the command to not do any work on the Sabbath, the punishment for breaking this law, as explained further in the Law of Moses, is to stone the unruly children to death.

While there is no shortage of troubled kids who disobey their parents, it is not the disobedience which is most troublesome, since it is often a manifestation of deeper issues. Typically, mental issues, substance abuse and criminal activity are the primary reasons kids may be deemed sufficiently troubled as to warrant intervention or disciplinary action from the state. In most other cases I can think of, the children are actually victims and any "acting out" is simply a cry for help. So, again, there is little to no correlation to US law.

Adding to the moral disconnect between the "10 Commandments" and our society, the promise that obedience to parents will extend one's life is simply untrue and more superstitious bull crap. Unsure? Ask the parents of a child who has passed away just how extra disobedient the child was before their death. I would be surprised if any such parents could utter a single word against their lost child. As far as I can figure, the only way the promise of a longer life for obedient children would hold true is if parents, as the Law of Moses commands, stone their disobedient children.

6. "Thou shalt not kill."

Simple and to the point, this commandment is one of the few on the list which actually has a modern equivalent in our laws. In fact, every society that has ever seen growth and civilization has had some form of this prohibition. As Christopher Hitchens points out, it would be hard to imagine that the ancient Jews would have made it as far as Mount Sinai had they been under a different impression.

The universality of laws against murder suggests that the "10 Commandants" are not the origin of such a moral position, and are not necessary to see the societal benefits.

Some people who question the veracity of the bible point to the apparent hypocrisy of god issuing the command to not kill, when he also commands the Jews to wipe out entire civilizations, killing men, women, children, and in some cases, livestock. Not to worry, though! Christian apologists have you doubters covered. You see, the argument goes that the Hebrew word used in this commandment is specific to unlawful or unjust murders between Jews. If you are killing heathens or apostates for god, you are morally unblemished.

7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Although this is not explicitly in our laws (infidelity may lead to uncontested divorce, depending on agreements made in the marriage contract, but it is not illegal), I generally agree that cheating on one's partner is immoral. It could cause psychological issues and distrust, as well as putting the other person in harm’s way of STDs without their knowledge. If both parties are aware and agree to extramarital relations beforehand, however, I see no moral reasons to oppose it.

8. "Thou shalt not steal."

As with the sixth commandment ("Thou shalt not kill"), prohibitions on theft seem fairly universal. And such universality suggests that a pronouncement from god on this subject is neither revolutionary, nor necessary. In short, when people are allowed to set their own moral limits, they generally wind up agreeing that stealing is bad. There may be exceptions to this, such as a starving homeless child stealing food to survive, but it works as a rule of thumb.

The reason this works is because most people understand that things like theft and murder do real, demonstrable harm to others. This is the root of morality: levels of harm in social interactions. God need not enter in to the equation, especially if he can arbitrarily decide not to follow his own moral commands should it suit his purposes (or, rather, the purposes of self-proclaimed prophets speaking on god's behalf...).

9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

Most people simplify this verse to say that one should not lie. I find this overly simplistic. As with theft, there may be situations in which lying is the most moral choice.

A well-known example of this is Jews during WWII pretending to be Christians in order to avoid the wholesale slaughter of their people by the Nazis (by the way, many Nazis believed that, since the Jews killed Jesus, they were killing for god).

Not all examples of acceptable reasons to lie involve saving one's life, however. Perhaps a young atheist cannot admit their position due to family pressures. Perhaps parents want to surprise their small children on Christmas and Easter with miraculously appearing presents and chocolate eggs. Perhaps one wishes to spare someone else unnecessary grief.

The point is that lying is not cut and dry. Generally, it may be advisable not to lie, but it is not universal. Of the commandments which do have some connection to modern laws, lying seems to have the most exceptions. Furthermore, most instances when a person might lie are not illegal.

Perjury before a court, breaking or lying about legal contracts, or pretending to be someone else to deceive a police officer are among the few types of lies which concern our legal system. Whether or not you say truthful things about a neighbor will not generally raise any legal eyebrows.

10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s."

So far, most of the commandments are either amoral (morally neutral) or morally obvious. This command, however, is explicitly immoral. It is tantamount to thought-crime. It tells believers that god not only knows what they think, but will judge them eternally according to their thoughts.

"Covet" is synonymous with "desire." Some add that it is an obsessive desire. If all a person does is desire, obsessively or not, and does not act on this, where is the harm to others? I don't see how wanting something can be implicitly immoral, much less punishable.

For instance, pedophilia (another issue completely missed by the Law of Moses) is pretty close to universally despised, yet simply finding children sexually appealing is not a crime. Only when an adult actively tries to seduce a minor is the criminality line crossed. It is the action which is criminal and immoral, not necessarily the thoughts.

I realize this may sound off-putting or morally questionable to some, and to be clear, I am not condoning pedophilia--even in thought. Such people need psychological help, because in most instances the condition is indicative of deep emotional issues, even mental underdevelopment. But needing professional help is not immoral and it is not criminal. And neither are disturbing thoughts or wanting the possessions of others.

Also, did you catch the subtle bit of sexism when god listed women alongside cattle as possessions of "thy neighbor?" Nice one god. Ancient Jews, like many patriarchal societies of their time, viewed women as property of men. Many Christians, Muslims and Jews today still follow this and treat women as second class citizens. Worst of all, the holy book to which they adhere and claim is the basis of their morality actually supports their misogyny!

If you take nothing else from this far too long post, please see that the bible does not make people more moral. It teaches them to surrender their conscience and accept an outdated moral authority. This is not morality--this is subservience. Hitchens asked, "Who, but a slave, would want this?"

Many atheists have addressed the "10 Commandments" by either deconstructing them and pointing out their immoral nature, as I have attempted here, or by submitting their own "atheist" or "secular" commandments.

The most entertaining of these which I have come across is from Bobby Henderson in his book, "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." This satirical take on religion is both more interesting than the original Commandments (aka "Condiments") and, somewhat ironically, more moral. See for yourself:

The eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

1. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like A Sanctimonious, Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.

2. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Don't Require Sacrifices And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.

3. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This In Your Thick Heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey-Samey. One Is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We're Talking About Fashion And I'm Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal And Fuchsia.

4. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off The TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.

5. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B******.

6. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Build Multimillion-Dollar Churches/Temples/Mosques/Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick):

A. Ending Poverty


B. Curing Diseases


C. Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable

I Might Be A Complex-Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM The Creator.

7. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?

8. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot Of Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. IfThe Other Person Is Into It, However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear A CONDOM! Honestly, It's A Piece Of Rubber. If I Didn't Want It To Feel Good When You Did IT I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.

RAmen.


BONUS MATERIAL:

Christopher Hitchens on the 10 Commandments:

AND I'M A FORMON

The latest video from Mr Deity is a response to the "And I'm a Mormon" ad campaign. It is neither ubiquitous nor information-free! Here are some of my favorite lines which are particularly relevant to my own apostacy:

"I no longer believe that a burning in my bosom is any indication of truth or value."

"I no longer give 10% of my gross income to a multi-billion dollar corporation."

"I no longer believe that homosexuality is a sin."

"I no longer believe that a stone knife is a good substitute for what the Book of Mormon very specifically calls a "steel sword."

"I no longer believe that an ordinary Egyptian funerary text from the Common Era contains the writings of Father Abraham."

"I no longer believe that dark-skinned people can become light-skinned people by living the Mormon gospel."

"I no longer believe that placing one's face in a hat containing a "seer-stone" is a reliable means of translating an ancient language."

"I no longer believe that my happiness is enhanced by my obedience to other men's ideas of how I should live my life."

Here is the video:

MR ATHEIST PANTS

New episode of Mr Deity:

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

A few weeks ago I came across an ongoing series of videos in which "real actors" read posts made on Christian Internet forums (the same people who made "Real Actors Read Yelp"). The videos reminded me of a website which posts funny and outrageous things said by fundamentalist Christians called "Fundies Say the Darndest Things". Anyway, I was going to post the videos then, but I forgot about them until today. Enjoy!

#1

#2

#3 (My favorite)

#4

#5

BONUS MATERIAL:

This is one of my favorite clips from the series "Real Actors Read Yelp" (this guy kills me every time):

THE "H" IS SILENT

I was going to write a serious post about something or other, but I'm tired and blah blah blah. Anyway, here is a recent bit from Saturday Night Live about a new Quentin Tarentino movie:

VERY NAUGHTY BOYS

The following is from a 1979 BBC talk-show on Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which is one of the most profound and influential satires on Christianity ever produced. I find it interesting that so many of the topics John Cleese and Micheal Palin address are still thrown into the arena of intellectual debate by religious folk.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

BLAS FOR ME, BLAS FOR YOU

Here is Eddie Izzard on the history of the Church of England:

And one on Popes:

CRIME SANS VICTIMS

"Indeed, what is startling about the notion of a victimless crime is that even when the behavior in question is genuinely victimless, its criminality is still affirmed by those who are eager to punish it. It is in such cases that the true genius lurking behind many of our laws stands revealed. The idea of a victimless crime is nothing more than a judicial reprise of the Christian notion of sin."
--Sam Harris, author "The End of Faith"




What happens when someone uses science incorrectly? First, it has the potential to mislead people. Second, it opens the floodgates of scrutiny.

Now, I don't read the newspaper often, but I am aware that some newspapers are politically, and in some cases religiously biased. For instance, I have heard a number of my more conservative friends and family bash the New York Times for being too liberal or progressive. This may be true of the opinions shared in the paper, but I don't think anyone has shown the NY Times completely and utterly misusing science. This is, however, something which the Deseret News (a pro-Mormon newspaper in Utah) has been caught doing recently.

The headline from an article published yesterday reads: "Link found between porn use and supporting same-sex marriage". The article itself shamelessly and inaccurately tries to show how support for gay marriage "may be, at least in part, a byproduct of regular exposure to diverse and graphic sex acts." In other words, if you watch porn, you will start to favor gay marriage, two things which the Mormon Church has spent countless time and money fighting against, perhaps more so than any other social issues.

This article is intended to strike fear and alarm in the minds of faithful, chaste and not the least bit perverse Mormons. What better way to scapegoat one condemned activity than by "linking" it to another? Why not apply this to other things, while we are at it? Masturbation is linked to bank robbing, and swearing is linked to stabbing puppies in the eyes with rusty soldering irons on Christmas Eve. See? It's easy.

Well, the claim is so outrageous and fallacious and completely unfounded by any actual science that some rather clever people have been issuing responses to the article, such as "Link Found Between Pedophilia and Reading the Deseret News". This blog response has some good points and useful links which show how the Deseret News is as bad at social science as they are at moral crusades.

One point the blog makes, which occurred to me as I read the news article, is that Utah has the highest porn use per household in the US (interestingly, porn use goes down temporarily on Sundays). This means that if the hypothesis is true that viewing pornography changes your views to be in favor of gay marriage, then Utah should also be at the forefront of the gay marriage movement. But, as anyone who is the least bit familiar with California's Proposition 8 can tell you, Utahns (at least Mormons) vehemently and monetarily oppose gay marriage. So, which is it, Deseret News?

There is one thing in common between porn and gay marriage which I can think of, and that is that both are opposed exclusively for religious reasons. All arguments against homosexuality and pornography seem to come from religions and their own moral codes. Ultimately, I don't have a problem with them denying science in order to condemn whatever they want. But I do have a big problem when they try to legislate against such things for people not of their religion. It is wrong and immoral to do so.



On a lighter note, today I came across a site which outlines the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. Note: everything they say is scientifically verifiable, if a little exaggerated.


BONUS MATERIAL:

And here is Penn and Teller on the War on Porn (warning: very explicit):

Part 1

Part 2

APOCALYPSE NOW-ISH

This is all I'm going to post about the Mayan calendar ending this Friday (12/21/12), seeing how it is so ridiculous (warning: explicit):

Part 1

Part 2

NEW ZEAL

So, this is what a church with a sense of humor looks like:

 

 

Only in New Zealand.

WAY OF THE MISTER

So Brian Dalton (aka Mr Deity) was once a Mormon. John Dehlin (still a Mormon (so he says...)) runs a group called "Mormon Stories", which interviews various people who have struggled with Mormon theology, culture or history, some of whom have left the church. A while ago I came across a Mormon Stories podcast where Mr Dehlin interviewed Mr Deity:

More recently (like, two days ago) I came across a second video from Mormon Stories of Mr Deity speaking at the Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium (Sunstone was sort of a predecessor to mormonthink.com). This video is fantastic. It includes back stories to some of the Mr Deity videos and even live performances by Mr Deity and Lucy. Enjoy!

DEBUNK-A-DUNK

For those who don't know, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) has issued a fabulous prize of one million dollars (see left) for anyone who can provide conclusive evidentiary support for any paranormal or supernatural claim. It doesn't matter if it is telepathy, homeopathy, dowsing, astrology, mindreading, bending spoons or keys, talking to the dead, or proving the existence of god, ghosts or invisible pink unicorns; if it is paranormal or supernatural and you have proof that it is real, the JREF will give you one million dollars. So, how many people have won this prize? Zero people...

Despite having some form of this challenge since 1964, the JREF has never had anyone provide indisputable proof of anything supernatural or paranormal, but not for lack of applicants. Here is James Randi explaining the challenge:

James Randi, a successful magician himself, has ruffled feathers for years among his colleagues as he has exposed a number of them as charlatans and frauds, who willfully deceive gullible audiences with claims of being true-blue mystics and psychics and the like. Just as he did to psychic Uri Gellar on the Johnny Carson Show (on live TV!), and a few years later, the imfamous Christian Evangelist Peter Popoff:

Mr Randi is not the only magician seeking to expose opportunistic frauds who prey on the credulous. Here is Criss Angel (successfully) taunting "paranormalist" Jim Callahan with his own money on live television (note: Uri Gellar, who was previously exposed as a fraud by James Randi, is also on the show, and wouldn't you know it, he believes Mr Callahan is the real deal...):

Good stuff, and even better television. One more: Here is dynamic-duo, Penn and Teller, debunking astrology (explicit):

So, why am I spending all this time on debunking supernatural mumbo-jumbo, malarcky, and jibbery-joo? Because the same tactics used by illusionists to defame charlatans can be used to debunk many, if not all, religious claims. For me, atheism is a logical extension of my skepticism. I have no more reason to believe in god than ghosts, star alignment, or the boogey man. Provide me with a rational, empirical reason to believe in god, and I will not only believe, but I will submit your proof to James Randi and give you the money you deserve. I may even eat my hat.


BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is musician, comedian, and atheist extraordinaire Tim Minchin pretty much agreeing with me:

And one more from Mr Minchin on confronting a "New Ager":

WITH A SIDE OF HUMMUS

Ever wonder if the politically far-right have considered how NOT legalizing gay marriage might destroy their own relationships? BAM! Touche, army of fabulous Luke Skywalkers. Touche.

CollegeHumor's Favorite Funny Videos

50 SHADES OF PAT ROBERTSON

Sometimes I like to watch Christian television. It amuses (scares?) me that so many people take Televangelists seriously. Here are some of my favorite clips of Televangelist heavy weight Pat Robertson.

"50 Shades of Grey" and "Mommy Porn":

A blessing in disguise in Haiti:

Off-air homophobia:

Predicting the 2012 election:

Demon Hunting:

Spousal abuse:

Adoption:

And my personal favorite, the cause of 9/11:

GOD VLOG

Time for another post of atheist comedy. In the same vein as some of the lighter videos from The Thinking Atheist, with a hint of Mr Deity and Edward Current, I give you "DarkMatter2525".

(Warning: pretty much all of the videos below have moderate to strong language--enjoy responsibly)

The Great Flood:

Double Standard:

God's Priorities:

God's Moral Framework:

The Most Wrong Anyone Ever Was:

The Credibility of Faith (not really funny, but still good):

God of Paradox:

The Thing that God Can't Do:

God Vlog:

Islam and the Big Bong Theory:

The Book of Job (one of my favorites):

CREATIONISM IS SO APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN

Yet another great clip from Mr. Deity. This time he tackles the controversial clip from Bill Nye the Science Guy denouncing creationism as inappropriate for children. Enjoy!

TIDE

Satirist Edward Current has created a new video about Tide for Mormons:

MODERATE HUMOR

This is a little cartoon I made in response to all the moderate Muslims claiming Muslim Extremists don't represent their religion, and to all the Christians who agree.

BIG "OH BROTHER"

"Atheists are often charged with blasphemy, but it is a crime they cannot commit.... When the Atheist examines, denounces, or satirizes the gods, he is not dealing with persons but with ideas. He is incapable of insulting God, for he does not admit the existence of any such being."

—G. W. FOOTE





A few weeks ago my Facebook news feed exploded as my Mormon friends and family discussed the recent 42 minute news report by Brian Williams on the Church. Most comments were positive, acknowledging that there were "some mistakes" but it was a pretty fair report. Others were outraged by what they perceived as blatantly disrespectful jabs at the Mormon Church. The worst offense by most counts was the showing of Mormon temple undergarments (aka "Magic Mormon Underwear", see left). To an extent, I understand the outrage. They perceive it as disrespectful, and most Mormons are very careful to cover up their garments and never show them to non-Mormons. They are symbols of the sacred temple ceremony and should, therefore, be treated with the same level of reverence.

So, before every one of my Mormon friends and family decide to never speak to me again for revealing the temple garments on a public blog, let me make my point: to those who are not Mormon, temple garments are not sacred. This means that viewing the garments and talking openly about them is not a matter of respect (Brian Williams was hardly being disrespectful in his report), it is a matter of free speech.

All I can say to those who are offended by the picture above is that they are choosing to be offended because of a made up rule which they willingly subscribe to in order to make it into the highest kingdom in heaven. That's too wordy, so let's simplify it: you are mad because I do not follow the same moral standard as you.

I value open discourse and debate. I value free speech. I value demonstrable morality. Putting a restriction on talking about or showing a picture of some cloths slams the door on discourse, free speech and demonstrating your moral standard.

This may be a slippery slope, but such restrictions are not that far removed from banning--or even burning--books. I would understand your outrage if an active Mormon revealed the garments, but expecting non-Mormons to abide by your rules imposes your morality onto others. This is the same principle used to justify anti-blasphemy laws to restrict non-Muslims from criticizing Islam.

This brings me to my next point: The Middle East is still pissed about the "Innocence of Muslims" video which incited riots at US embassies, which resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens. In fact, in the last few days, more people have been killed in riots. According to this BBC report, 20 people were killed in a riot in Pakistan as protestors of the film clashed with police. And now certain members of the United Nations are trying to pass INTERNATIONAL anti-blasphemy laws.

Let that sink in for a bit.

To the credit of the Mormons outraged by the Brian Williams report, they have not started riots, nor have they pushed for "anti-disrespectful showings of temple garments" legislation. They are only upset. And to be fair, that is their right to be upset, even if I don't see the big deal.

Here is the full Brian Williams report

BONUS MATERIAL:

For those who still think the Brian Williams report was in poor taste or went a little too far, or for those interested in seeing real disrespect for Mormon temple garments, click here.