The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

What’s the Matter with Kansas?

May 7, 2005 | 57 Comments

Liz Lenton at CityScapeThree challenges the truth of evolution, pointing out that those challenging the truth of evolution in Kansas haven’t really evolved.


57 Responses to “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”

  1. Lydia
    May 8th, 2005 @ 1:09 am

    weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning . Psalm 30:5 (last part)
    I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. 2 Timothy 1:12 (last part).
    Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. 1 Peter 5:7
    Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him. Psalms 103:13
    I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. Hebrews 13:5 (last part)
    But he knoweth the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold. Job 23:10.
    I will not leave you comfortless: John 14:18.
    As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted Isaiah 66:13 (first part).
    For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is loyal toward him. 2 Chronicles 16:9 (first part).
    The angel of the LORD encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.
    O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. Psalms 34:7-8.
    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Psalms 23:4.

  2. Mijae
    May 8th, 2005 @ 1:37 am

    In the beginning was the Invisible, and the Invisible was with the Unicorn, and the Invisible was the Unicorn. (Joe 1:9)
    Let Her prod me with the spike of Her horn, for the touch of Her Pink Ivory hurts at first but then bringeth forth great cataracts of pleasure. (Drusus 1:2)
    Fear of the IPU adds length to life, unless she decides to hit you with seventy three billion bolts of lightning. Then thou is shit out of luck. (Proverbs 1:34)
    Thus came to be such minions of malaise as the Visible Brown Unicorn, and the Purple Oyster of Doom; for it is Her decision that purple is usually a color for shitheads, and yea verily so is brown. (Prescriptures 4:5)
    “Blessed are the ignorant, for they entertain us and are easy targets.” (Roxanne 1:7)

  3. Mookie
    May 8th, 2005 @ 5:46 am

    The first two posts are both ridiculously absurd, but the first one borders on tragic. Mijae knows his is a bunch of bullshit, but Lydia does not realize hers is as well. That’s what makes it so sad.

  4. Lundie
    May 8th, 2005 @ 6:33 am

    I hate it when people start quoting the bible as if it means something. HeLoOoo? This is a site for Atheists!! We think the bible is an entertaining novel made up by a bunch of barbarians! If you Xians wanna make a point try logic for once, assuming you haven’t surrendered it to the church yet of course.

  5. glenstonecottage
    May 8th, 2005 @ 9:43 am

    Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him. Psalms 103:13

    Yep, you religious fanatics are all about Authority and Fear, aren’t you Lydia?

    Religion has probably caused more mental illness than just about anything else you can possibly name. Look at all those women in Afganistan that have to wear that stupid burka outfit and be subject to all those crazy laws about not going out unless they are supervised by a man— how many of them have probably gone insane or committed suicide by now?

    And Lydia, if you were living in Afganistan, being the cowardly conformist fool that you are, I have no doubt that you’d be a devout believer in all this crazy shit.

    Why don’t you grow a brain, you silly woman?

  6. glenstonecottage
    May 8th, 2005 @ 10:49 am

    Well, I don’t think the Kansas Biblethumpers have gone quite far enough in making the science curriculum fully match the Bible.

    We’re obviously going to need some Flat-Earth Geography… as the Inquisition once said to Galileo, “Just show me in the Bible where it says the earth is round, you atheist bastard!”

  7. Kafkaesquí
    May 8th, 2005 @ 10:56 am

    Hey, I love quoting from Psalms. Mind if I try some of that here? I didn’t think you’d mind:

    Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces. Psalms 2:9

    Hope this isn’t too violent. Considering how they all loved Mel’s Passion for the Christ, I suspect not.

    Save me, O my God, for thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone; thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly. Psalms 3:7

    Anyone know a good orthodontist?

    The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. Psalms 58:10

    God sure does loves a blood bath.

    That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same. Psalms 68:23

    The tongue of thy dogs? Just what do you feed your pets?

    And my favorite:
    Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalms 137:9

    Ah, a good old fashion baby killing. If you can’t enjoy infanticide, you’re not a Christian.

  8. leon
    May 8th, 2005 @ 12:38 pm

    Here’s a recipe for making bread straight from god.
    Mmmm… enjoy.

    4:9 Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof.
    4:10 And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it.
    4:11 Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink.
    4:12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
    4:13 And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
    4:14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
    4:15 Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.

    Ezekiel’s bread. It’s supposed to be made according to the recipe given in this verse and is said to be a complete meal that satisfies all nutritional requirements. I guess that’s how Ezekiel managed to survive lying on his side for 390 days and eating only this bread. Imagine the smell.

  9. Lundie
    May 8th, 2005 @ 4:43 pm

    No wonder he was having visions. If I was eating bread made from my own dung for a whole year I’d be seeing shit as well. Wouldn’t it be easier (not to mention more hygienic) if he just took some wacky backy?

  10. glenstonecottage
    May 8th, 2005 @ 7:46 pm

    Mmmn, mmmmn! How I’d love to bake this heavenly-ordained recipe to serve to some of our ‘thumper friends.

    Come and get it, Lydia and Joanie!

    “God said it, you supposedly believe it, so let’s see you EAT IT!”

  11. Delta
    May 9th, 2005 @ 1:25 am

    Hehe, christianity is so silly.

  12. andrew
    May 9th, 2005 @ 2:03 am

    you guys are awesome.

  13. lucy Muff
    May 9th, 2005 @ 5:20 am

    Why shouldn’t the people of Kansas say what they want in their own school. Their ministrie is and sahold be their own. If atheist don’t like it let them go away to California or other godless hellhole and learn stem sell research and false evolutions. Maybe you ssholud tell islam countries what to teach in their schools as well because “atheists know best” even though Christ has taught us for 2000 years and is more popular now than ever before.

  14. glenstonecottage
    May 9th, 2005 @ 8:44 am

    Awfully bitter, lucy Muff. Sounds like you didn’t enjoy your Biblical dung-cake very much at all!

  15. hermesten
    May 9th, 2005 @ 9:52 am

    I agree with Lucy. In fact, perhaps the best course would be to create a new superior school system for Christians where the only book studied is the Bible –like the schools in Muslim countries that study the Koran. Evil secularists would be consigned to studying the sciences and other intellectual debris such as literature and the arts. Christians would learn the true wisdom and value of God’s word and the rest of us would have a more courteous, more obdient and egalitarian class of people waiting on us in restaurants, cleaning our hotel rooms, doing our yard work, and collecting our trash.

  16. Frank
    May 9th, 2005 @ 10:06 am

    leon — you realize, of course, that the dung mentioned in the passage in Ezekiel is used for cooking fuel and not as an ingredient? You know, of course, that using dung for cooking and heating fuel was a common thing in the culture of that part of the world during that time. Heck, some folks there still use it today. But, of course, you knew that already.

  17. Eva
    May 9th, 2005 @ 10:11 am

    we all knew that, frank…….but it made for a couple of nice jokes…..

  18. jamie
    May 9th, 2005 @ 10:16 am

    Hey Frank, of course he knew that. These atheists know everything and they can use real big words like anthropomorphisize – very impressive.

  19. June
    May 9th, 2005 @ 11:49 am

    Hey, jamie, it’s “anthropomorphize”

  20. jamie
    May 9th, 2005 @ 12:44 pm

    Thanks, June, I wasn’t sure of the correct spelling – I can’t find it in my Webster’s.

  21. AK
    May 9th, 2005 @ 2:07 pm

    Godless hellhole California? Compared to what, Kansas?

    Lets see, California has better deducation rates than Kansas. California is healthier than Kansas (less fat asses). California has, by just about every measurement, a better quality of life than Kansas.

    Yet you claim California is a Godless Hellhole. The 6th largest ecomony in the world, California, is a hellhole. What does that make Kansas?

    What does Kanswas do better than California? They pray better I guess. Does God give more happiness to those praying Kansas residents? I dont see where God gives them benefits over Californians for their devout worship.

    Why is God giving all the qualit of life, all the happiness, and all the earthly benefits to California rather than to Kansas? I thought the Bible said that the devout will reap benefits here and now while the godless heathens will suffer?

    The only people from Kansas that should be allowed to move to California ARE the atheists, for they deserve a better living environment. Notice also, that as atheists leave Kansas and move to California, Kansas will become and even more worthless place than it already is.

    How the hell do you even define “hellhole”? It sure isnt by anything related to THIS reality, unless you define “hellhole” as “having less fat stupid people”.

    Maybe Kansas is a heavenhole? And I guess we should define “heavenhole” as “full of ignorant fat supid people that make no money, die young, divorce too much, live in trailer parks, and get laughed at by the ENTIRE DEVELOPED WORLD for being total retards reminiscint of flat-earthers.”

    I will continue to live in my blissfull, sunny, educated, financially viable, healthy, humane “hellhole” known as California, thank you very much. It beats the shit out of Kansas any day of the week.

  22. glenstonecottage
    May 9th, 2005 @ 2:18 pm

    Frank said:
    leon — you realize, of course, that the dung mentioned in the passage in Ezekiel is used for cooking fuel and not as an ingredient? You know, of course, that using dung for cooking and heating fuel was a common thing in the culture of that part of the world during that time.

    Oh, why not just eat the dung, Frank? You’ve already swallowed all the rest of the shit from the Bible!

  23. MBains
    May 9th, 2005 @ 4:21 pm

    Just a reminder: LucyMuff is a self-potted plant (with a green thumb.) I’m not sure of her pot though… Mmmmm… pot…
    Ahem. What person in their right mind could possibly think of CA as a Hellhole? ;-}

    Lydia, on the other hand… {sigh} Silly human…

    (I just felt like these comments were encouraged weirdness so… Not that I need much encouragement.) What was the post about again? Oh yah! Unevolved anti-evolutionism! Would you explain Evolution is for us Lydia? Maybe we who prefer Actual knowledge to Revelatory inspiration could learn something fr… Nope. Nevermind. L8

  24. hermesten
    May 9th, 2005 @ 5:20 pm

    My limited contact with Kansas tells me it’s a shit hole, maybe even worse than Oklahoma (a place with which I’ve had way more contact than I ever wanted). It’s not hopeless though. I think that all it will take is about twenty years to turn the place around and make it as progressive and enlightened as Iran (today’s Iran I mean –I doubt they’ll be able to keep pace with Iranian progress). And anyway, it if wasn’t for places like Kansas, what would people in Alabama and Mississippi have to feel good about?

    Mbains, Lucy’s name says it all.

  25. hermesten
    May 9th, 2005 @ 5:28 pm

    “These atheists know everything and they can use real big words like anthropomorphisize – very impressive.”

    Made me think of the exchange in Ronin, where Sean Bean says to Robert Deniro: “you think too much.” And Deniro says: “no one’s ever accused me of that before.”

    Come on fellow atheists, maybe if we work at being ignorant and keep our vocabulary limited, we’ll be able to appreciate the Bible. Hell, maybe if we can make ourselves ignorant enough to believe in the Christian God, He will infuse us with some of that Holy Spirit –instead of the kind they make in Scotland and Jamaica– and we too can feel smug that we have all the answers.

  26. MBains
    May 9th, 2005 @ 8:18 pm

    Mbains, Lucy’s name says it all.

    I can’t help it man! I read that name and the Lizard snaps to attention! LOL! Thanks LM. Just cuz I’m atheist doesn’t mean that I’m perfect. Just perfectly me.

    There ya go. Some New Age philo-sophistry to boot!

  27. Anonymous Theist
    May 10th, 2005 @ 8:04 am

    The founding fathers were all atheists!

  28. niles
    May 10th, 2005 @ 3:19 pm

    Lydia,remember Matthew 7:6!

  29. leon
    May 12th, 2005 @ 1:11 pm

    Why is it that so many promoters of gods rely on deception, and then turn to insults? This kind of behavior is revealing. It points to the true origin of their beliefs is mass superstitious lunacy combined with psychological projection from their own egos.

  30. Lundie
    May 12th, 2005 @ 2:47 pm

    leon: I agree, kinda reminds me of Sparky, started out all nice and challenged us heathens to an intelligent debate. Didn’t last long though, he settled for hurling personal insults throughtout the end and just stopped posting when he ran out of cusswords.

  31. boywonder
    May 12th, 2005 @ 6:39 pm

    Has anyone been to This is the kind of stuff I worry about. This whole Kansas wanting equal time with creationism thing may seem stupid and harmless, but people like that are RELENTLESS. 99.9% of all legit scientists believe in the basic aspects of evolution. Some may bicker about specifics, but the ‘theory’ is as sound as the ‘theory’ of gravity. That doesn’t matter though. Creationists ignore the intellectual world. The problem is they never stop pushing their agenda, and many people are duped by their bullshit. Give an inch and they’ll take a mile. The simple fact that this issue is receiving this kind of attention should be a red flag to everyone. The more attention creationism gets, the more people may think it is viable. I think of Miss Cleo offhand. With the right kind of advertising, and the right scheme, anyone can profit from pure bullshit. It’s just that creationists aren’t looking for pure monetary profit(although I’m sure they wouldn’t mind). Their type of bullshit hits the core of our already weak public education system. And don’t get me started on Bush underfunding public schools and pushing vouchers for private religious schools. I believe that is the idea though. The more attacks that are made to our educational system, the weaker it gets. Different options such as vouchers start to seem desirable. It’s the whole ‘slippery slope’ idea.

  32. Jahrta
    May 13th, 2005 @ 10:04 am

    if i had one wish for humanity, it would be to place all of the religious nutjobs together in one overflowing state, like kansas. there, they could come together to worship their imaginary vengeful skygods and partake in their cannibalistic rituals while they mock the rest of the sane, rational, MODERN world for their evil secular ways and false beliefs in “stem sell research” – it’s “Cell” by the way, you brainless twat.

    There in their new kingdom of peace, love and understanding, the faithful and devout could wall off their perfect little community with a wall that was a thousand feet thick and a mile high – that would be plenty tall enough to insulate them from the sin, degradation and impurity of the, um…REAL world that was all around them, so that they could continue to mind-rape each other and “teach” each other idiocy that undermines everything the empirical data and science have taught mankind over the last 2000 years or so.

    Of course, in the interest of preserving this new and perfect godly society, there would be no way for the heathen masses to intrude and corrupt their society, nor would there be any way for the devout to get out, as they may be tempted from time to time (you know, in need of things like medical supplies and treatments). It would be like an impenetrable fortress.

    if i had TWO wishes? My second wish would be to fill that fortress with water up to the sky and watch them all drown in their ignorance.

    kinda makes you think of that passage from “imagine,” doesn’t it?

  33. Frank
    May 13th, 2005 @ 10:28 am

    Jahrta — is this what passes as “enlightened” and “rational” thought to you? The mass murder of people YOU decide are inferior to you for whatever reason? You may be convinced (and I think you are) that people with strong religious convictions are intellectually (and otherwise) inferior to you, is that a justification for drowning those millions?

    You accuse God of being vengeful and the people who believe in Him as “nutjobs” while you characterize your worldview as “sane, rational, and modern.” You say religious teachings undermine everything that empirical data and science have taught mankind over the last 2000 years. You know, you don’t have to go back 2000 years to get a real good history lesson on the eventual conclusion of this kind of thinking. In fact, you don’t have to go back 100 years.

    There was a guy who thought very much like you do. He and his people were superior to everyone else, in particular the group they considered the “nutjobs.” This man claimed for himself the authority to murder the people he deemed as inferior. If you don’t know who I’m talking about or if you do know who I’m talking about and you can’t see the obvious parallel between his thought process and yours, then you are not nearly as smart as you think you are.

    No, your comments betray a thought process that is anything but “enlightened” or “rational” … even if they were made in jest.

  34. Debbie
    May 13th, 2005 @ 1:14 pm


    Why don’t you comment on the real issue here. OK, so you can draw and analogy between Jahrta’s fantasies and the actions of a self-professed devout Catholic, enforced by his military with “Got mitt uns” on their belt buckles. But at the root of Jaharta’s comment probably lies some genuine anger which is very well founded. In Kansas Christian fundamentalist politicians, going against the recommendations of their own science board, are trying to subvert truth and pervert science education of children so that they can push their faith. This is a disgrace. If some interpretations of your bible do not tie in with the world we live in, enacting legislation to lie to children about it is deeply shameful.

    What is also shameful is the lack of any Christian churches coming forward and saying how inappropriate it is for politicians to corrupt the science education in their state because of their personal faith. If Christians or other theists want respect for their personal faith, they should make a stand when others behave disgracefully in their name. Or do you think what is happening in Kansas is perfectly OK?

  35. Jahrta
    May 16th, 2005 @ 9:46 am

    Frank, i’m not going to bother trying to defend my coment to a schmuck like you because, quite simply stated, I AM superior to you, and any other jibbering idiot who places any stock in the simpleton ramblings of a savage who put together his thoughts on parchment over a thousand years ago.

    If you can’t come to grips with the obvious truth that my post was written in sardonic jest, then you are too stupid to draw breath.

    I take it from your response to my comment that you’d probably be one of the folks doing the backstroke in kansas, though, if i had my druthers.

  36. Jahrta
    May 16th, 2005 @ 9:50 am

    oh, and yeah frank. i’m hitler alright. yep, that’d be me. setting aside for the time being that i was raised a jew and all, that’s a really enlightened thing to call someone you don’t know.

    I’ve never killed anyone and probably never will, but what about that president of ours, eh? I’m sure you probably love that guy, just like all the other idiots who flooded the polls, lining up like sheep to cast their ballots for the idiot who shares their world view: gays bad! oil good! america perfect! Do you know how many people he murdered to suit his agenda? if you’re going to go calling people fuhrer on here, you might want to check out what’s going on around you, shitbag

  37. hermesten
    May 16th, 2005 @ 10:43 am

    Debbie’s point that Christians need to defend the rational elements of their “faith” can’t be emphasized enough. Where are all the people like Frank when the “bad” Christians are giving their religion a bad name? Personally, I think the “good” Christians like Frank are in the minority. The recent incident in Kentucky is a good illustration. Only about 10%, at most, of the congregation objected to the politicization of their church.

    I’ve seen it many many times: one of these fundie nutters says something outrageous surrounded by a group containing numerous Christians and the only people who ever voice any objection are the non-believers –who are usually outnumbered by Christians by about twenty to one.

    I also don’t think it can be emphasized enough that it is completely irrelevant what Hitler actually believed about God. He definitely believed God-talk was a good tool for those in power; and the simple fact that cannot be glossed over is that Germany was a Christian Nation, and there could not have been a Nazi Germany without the active support of Christians.

  38. hermesten
    May 16th, 2005 @ 10:52 am

    And BTW, just got my DVD of Der Untergang (Downfall – about the last days of the 3rd Reich) from Germany this weekend, and it is one hell of a good movie. I know (hope) this will outrage the right-wingers, but I couldn’t look at Goebbels without thinking “Karl Rove.” And no, I’m not equating Bush to Hitler, but yes, I am equating Rove to Goebbels. And if you watch this movie, note how similar the Hitler fanatics and our current day religious fanatics appear to be. A “true believer” never lets reality cloud his judgement.

  39. Simbol
    May 16th, 2005 @ 11:44 am


    I’d like to know what you understand by TOLERANCE.

    I’d perceived in this blog that many people rejects tolerance because that, suposedly, is admiting the existence and spreading of wrong ideas. From that premise derives the conclusion one has to be intolerant with the “wrong” ideas. Obviously, that implies the killing of tolerance because you dont’n need to be tolerant whit those ideas you think are right. I think rejecting tolerance is a misconception and a dangerous strategy, specially if you belong to a aminority as is atheism. Even more dangerous when there is, very a near to religion,a domain called politics. When intolerace in religion is extended to intolerance in politics yo are headed to hecatomb. On the other hand tolerance doesn’t implies passive acceptation of what one deems as wrong ideas. You has to discuss and fight intellectually but precluding and rejecting violence no only against the body,family or livelihood,but also against the dignity and free thinking of your opponent.Otherwise which is the difference between you and Fray Tomas de Torquemada? If atheism is going to develop by the ways Stalin used, I prefer religion to stay because I still stick to the idea that ends are meanigless if the means are indecent.

    Jahrta, I’m not callig you intolerant, only observing that since words have consequences, an abrassive style and some ominous parables (drowning some million) dont fit adequately in a high level discussion. In fact it sometimes undermine what otherwise would be sound and right arguments.

  40. jahrta
    May 16th, 2005 @ 12:48 pm


    I cannot be tolerant of stupidity.

    you may think it was stupid to make a callous joke about drowning millions of religious zealots, but seeing as how this is an atheist blog i didn’t think most people would see it as anything other than a joke. I’m not a politician nor have I ever aspired to be, so my words shouldn’t be taken so gravely fucking serious. it was a joke, get over it. That having been said, i am sick of being told that I have to be “tolerant” – fuck tolerance. Fuck it sideways. “Tolerance” is what got us in this mess in the first place. We as a people were tolerant of the jaw-droppingly obvious corruption and scandal with which the chimp took office in the first place, and through silence and averting our eyes, we have similarly become tolerant of invading sovereign nations for natural resources while diverting tax-payer money toward religious re-education. I also miss the concept of having social security – that would have been nice. RIP social security.

    I especially cannot be tolerant of our neocon dominionist theocratic regime (and yes, it is a regime in the purest sense of the word), as tolerance equals complacency, and is tantamount to the defeat of reason and logic.

    being complacent under the current circumstances is not only anti-american, but borders on treasonous. just because my viewpoints run completely opposite of herr bush & co. doesn’t mean that they’re not in the best interest of this country and its people. And no, let me stress that that doesn’t mean killing religious people, but we should damn well stop pandering to them, also. Creationism is bullshit. Teaching bullshit makes people ignorant by definition. We should only teach established fact in our schools. I’m sorry if that’s too hard for some of these morons to understand. I promise not to think in their churches if they promise not to pray in my schools. And while teaching creationism as a valid origin theory might not seem like prayer to you, it is so obviously steeped in christianity that there can be no separation. Public schools are state-sponsored and funded through taxpayer money, and as such, fall under the “separation of church and state” maxim. if people want their kids to learn the bullshit creation fairytale, they should either fill their heads up with bullshit after school, or on sundays like so many other people when they file into churches like cattle moving along the abattoire line.

    So no, i’m not prescribing the wholesale slaughter of a people based upon an ideology, no matter how idiotic it may be. I’m just sick of overtly religious people stomping all over science and academia because the evidence it digs up doesn’t support the “truths” they so deeply cherish from the bible.

    I would very much like to create a gated community that caters to atheist and agnostic culture, however (just NOT in kansas). does anyone see a problem with that?

  41. Simbol
    May 16th, 2005 @ 12:57 pm

    Herm, hi

    “and the simple fact that cannot be glossed over is that Germany was a Christian Nation, and there could not have been a Nazi Germany without the active support of Christians.”

    Poland, Chekoslovakia,and France, victims of Hitler, were also christian nations. USA and England which fought nazism were Christian nations. In Russia christianism was verboten but it seems to be that christianity was alive. So one can conclude that, paraphrasing you, “it cannot be a defeated Germany without the active support of christians”.

    From your recommended book (Reck-Malleczewen): “througout Germany Protestants were far more likely to vote Nazi than Catholics were” This shows that christians were not unanimous about Hitler. In fact the resistance to Hitler, weak as it was, was mounted, as you know, by intelectuals and religious people in the middle of a hopeless political situation. On the other hand, how can it be forgotten that nazis were hostile to religion?

    My friend Herm, it is difficult for me to accept that religion played an important role in the rise of nazism and the IIWW.

  42. Frank
    May 16th, 2005 @ 1:23 pm

    Jahrta — I did not call you Hitler, I just pointed out the obvious parallel between the thought process that produced your “joke” and the thought process that produced the holocaust. Claiming superiority over some other group for whatever reason is the first step toward things like Nazi Germany.

    And the fact that you were “raised a Jew” doesn’t matter one bit, not one bit. Anyone is capable of thinking in a manner consistent with the mindset of National Socialism. That goes for Christians, atheists, and, yes, Jews. We are all people and we are all capable of some pretty bad things.

    The difference between you and me is this: While we can engage in a debate over all manner of differences, you have articulated a claim of superiority over me. I’ve not done that. I don’t know your background, your highest level of education, your profession, experiences, nothing. And, our disagreement alone is no justification for me to make such a claim. Furthermore I don’t presume to be superior to people with whom I have disagreements. I state my case, argue my points, and listen to the other side do the same.

    Finally, as it is not my intention to get into name-calling contests with people at this forum, I will allow you to have the final say in the matter if you so desire.

  43. jahrta
    May 16th, 2005 @ 1:40 pm

    people who turn the other cheek usually get slapped there as well.

    Frank – anyone is capable of dark thoughts, but my point in taking umbrage with you likening me to hitler was that for someone who was raised a jew it has extra weight attached to it for obvious reasons.

    atheist or not, i would have been marched off to the camps along with everyone else because of my parentage and ancestry, and you better believe that if there was ever another attempt at a holocaust I’d take up arms against whoever it was who was trying to kill the jews.

    And just as you proclaimed to know little to nothing of me, aside from my stance on religion, so I too know little of you. you might very well be an upstanding taxpaying american citizen who doesn’t fit 99.9% of the “bill” I had imagined, but I do know this, however: I do not willfully visit blogs that, by definition of their mission statements and through the name of the websites themselves, serve as a bastion for those who hold beliefs and values 180 degrees contrary to my own, whereas you seem to do this for some unknown purpose. I will never understand what theists hope to accomplish by coming here and shaking their fingers at the atheists.

    I find it even more useless and senseless when they come here to cut and paste the bible for us, like we’re only atheists due to improper exposure to their wonderful book. not that you’ve done that in any post i can recall, but instead bringing up an issue.

    my claim of superiority wasn’t directed at you from the standpoint of parentage, education, socio-econimic status, how cool my car is, or penis size. I simply stated that I had outgrown the primitive, retarditaire and counter-productive cult of religion whereas you still appear to be comfortable with your chosen opiate of the masses. that is all.

  44. Lundie
    May 16th, 2005 @ 1:43 pm

    Frank, I agree with you. One of the main reasons why I object to the perpetuation of religion is because I perceive it to be one of the underlying causes, or at least the vehicle, of sectarianism in our society. And Jahrta’s bombast is further evidence that maybe Atheism (or at least some of its supposed proponents) isn’t free from this affliction as well.

  45. jahrta
    May 16th, 2005 @ 1:57 pm

    so you can’t stand sectarianism, lundie? go live in a monastery. i wholeheartedly support that move for you, as it would mean that you would be voluntarily removing yourself from relevant society, while simultaneously taking yourself out of the dating game, thus negating any chance we’d be seeing “little lundies” gurgling around and bumping into each other, blinded by the stupidity that your church force-feeds them from the cradle to the grave.

    and what are you, like 80? bombast? fucker please

  46. jahrta
    May 16th, 2005 @ 2:05 pm

    Frank – you didn’t have to voice a claim of superiority over me, as everything about your religion, and most, if you consider the stance of every fundametalist follower, claims to be superior over all others.

    Lundie – i thought you wrote secularist for whatever reason, not sectarian. dunno why i ran with that and got confused, nor do i know why i didn’t catch it as i typed it out again in my post. it wouldn’t let me edit it, so…

    I would, however, like to know what you think makes me “bombastic”

  47. Lundie
    May 16th, 2005 @ 3:49 pm

    No offense taken.

    Most of your points are valid, to be fair. But knee-jerk railing and ranting and name calling is hardly conducive to a productive debate, don’t you think? “Little lundies” springs to mind :)

    Then again this IS a forum so feel free to ramble on if thats your cup of tea.

  48. Lundie
    May 16th, 2005 @ 4:09 pm

    And I hate to see Frank being treated in an insulting manner. I’m very impressed that despite him being outnumbered 999 to 1, he still managed to keep his composure thus far and also came up with some interesting, valid and thought-provoking points for us to mull over.

    If I were in his position I’d probably be reduced to a howling maniacal wreck by now.

    And after all, what would this forum be without devil’s advocates like Frank? A boring site full of one-sided rants like one of those fundie websites thats what.

  49. jahrta
    May 16th, 2005 @ 4:11 pm

    c’mon! “li’l lundies!” – it comes trippingly off the tongue! :) Well, maybe not – it DOES sort of sound like “little undies” when said quickly.

    And i think there must be sub-divisions and sects of atheism as much as there are of an actual religion, because I spend almost as much time verbally sparring other atheists as I do theists on here.

    I hail from the intolerant, anti-pc sect. The Jahrtic sect, and all of my followers can be known as Jahrtim? Nah, I don’t have the patience to lead a sect, and no one’s signing up to follow. Too bad, that would have been nice: I could have declared myself a tax-exempt institution (not that this government would ever extend the same rights to anti-religious groups that they do to catholic and christian-based faith groups – dubya’s daddy himself decreed long ago that atheists aren’t true americans, and don’t belong here – while he was running for office).

  50. jahrta
    May 16th, 2005 @ 4:48 pm

    maybe frank’s pressence here makes for a more interesting site, and he is certainly preferable to the fundies who come here to spout garbage, but in the end, I cannot understand his aim in coming here and my point remains the same. does he think he’s going to make any of us abandon our atheist views? i don’t think his goal is to pick a fight, nor do i believe he’s proselytizing, so that only leaves the point of coming here to defend his religion. he doesn’t need to do this: if anything, it’s us atheists who need to defend our lack of religion as we are viewed as social pariahs and vile vampiric nosferatu-type scum of the earth anywhere but here. the ultimate in stupidity is when a fundie thinks that an atheist is a satan-worshipper. it never gets old having to explain to these people that someone who doesn’t believe in god also doesn’t believe in the debbil.

    at any rate, the vast majority of frank’s comments are civil. i seem to be the lucky one who catches everyone’s shitstorm on here so maybe it’s me, but only because i’m not PC – and for that matter, why would any atheist try to be PC when it is anti-PC to be an atheist by the very nature of what an atheist is?

  51. Simbol
    May 16th, 2005 @ 4:57 pm


    “That having been said, i am sick of being told that I have to be “tolerant” – fuck tolerance. Fuck it sideways. “Tolerance” is what got us in this mess in the first place.”

    As far as I have heard, something like you wrote is more or less what is saying your opponents. Some of them are my neighbors.

    The difference is in “mess”

    For you mess is ” We as a people were tolerant of the jaw-droppingly obvious corruption and scandal with which the chimp took office in the first place, and through silence and averting our eyes, we have similarly become tolerant of invading sovereign nations for natural resources while diverting tax-payer money toward religious re-education. I also miss the concept of having social security – that would have been nice. RIP social security.

    I especially cannot be tolerant of our neocon dominionist theocratic regime (and yes, it is a regime in the purest sense of the word), as tolerance equals complacency, and is tantamount to the defeat of reason and logic.

    being complacent under the current circumstances is not only anti-american, but borders on treasonous.”

    For the ultra right “mess” is: drugs, ilegal inmigration, abortion, gay marriage and tolerance of gay people, non-religious education, fear of terrorism and militant islamism, etc.

    I would say that both parties share some opinions (terrorism, inmigration).

    Ballots say both parties are more or less balanced.

    So, Jharta, my question is: where is headed this country if both parties behave in intolerant ways?

    There is not room for compromise? Compromise in some aspects is hard for both parties but alteratives usually are harder.

    Since there is not place where you can be totally happy, sometimes compromise is the best alterative because there are places where life is hell. I know it personally.

    I recognize at the same time, that some compromises are unswallowable, and you has to draw a line beyond which you cannot go. Where would you say that line is?

    Let me put an example (which is simultaneously religious and politic): I want my kid to be taught in evolution but I can accept that some parent have the right to exclude their kids from this teaching. Is their problem and the consequences will be paid by their kids. These boys will be disadvantaged in careers related to biology like health care, etc, no to mention the big lacuna in his knowledge and maybe negative effects in their psychological formation. But I cannot be “more papist than the pope” and teach a parent what is better for their kids. Reciprocally I dont want my kid to be taught creationism and if that is included in the curricula I must be entitled to exclude my son. This latter alternative is a violation of church-state separation, but is quite difficult to fight it in the domain of simmetry since you can be asked to be fair and to teach all the explanations and not only one because is the only sustained on scientific facts. A catholic can allege that science has to be taken into account but it is not the only criterion for him (JPII said that) as usually they do, and I dont know how to sustain that only my criterion is the valid one because in this matter, the weigh of science is not the same for both believers and not believers. Of course you can appellate to the constitution, but constitutions are as strong as the support they have. Frankly, I’m not afraid to expose my son to creationism, he has a good sense of humor and has been inoculated with a healthy dose of skepticism about religious matters but then again that isn’t the general case. Finally, sometimes I think if this battle it’s worth to figth very angrily. Organized religion, in western countries and for the time being is selfdefeating. Church attendance in going south in most of the countries, excluding islamic Asia and Africa. Even in latinamerica. The famous 40% attendance in USA seems to be half true. It doesn’t mean that people is becoming atheists or agnostics but it means that organized church is losing ground in many places and that is good news, because for me the only battle we can win in the next ten centuries is defeating organized church (defeating the idea of god is a lot more complicated). By the way there is one thing I cannot reconcile: It seems to be that church attendance in USA is going down for decades and a the same time organized church is more politically powerful now. A phenomenon like this is not very unusual but demands some explanation. Is there one?

    Finally, don’t take me as a defeatist. Far from that. I’m strongly confident that in this country, ignorance won’t prevail. You all are up to the task.

    Jahrta, excuse this lot of crap I wrote ut supra, but it is a try (maybe failed) to explain myself and my preferences for peaceful solutions to the endless problems that a given society poses. Maybe my preferences are consequence of my age (I’m 63) and my personal experience and the fact I’m an alien and I dont understand very well your country, not to mention the difficulties of exposing my views in a language I’m learning.

  52. Frank
    May 16th, 2005 @ 5:44 pm

    Lundie — you’re too kind.

    Jahrta — to answer your question … I come here to be challenged. I don’t come here with any expectation of convincing anyone of my position nor of talking anyone into converting to Christianity. I come here specifically because everyone here holds to a different worldview than do I and by engaging in discussion and debate I am challenged to think in ways that I would not otherwise. I won’t deny that I would be thrilled were someone here exercise faith in Jesus Christ as a result of one of our discussions. I would. But that is not the intended purpose of my being here.

  53. hermesten
    May 16th, 2005 @ 6:06 pm

    Simbol: “My friend Herm, it is difficult for me to accept that religion played an important role in the rise of nazism and the IIWW.”

    You misunderstand my point if you think I meant to suggest religion played an important role in the rise of the 3rd Reich. What I’m getting at is much more basic. Religionists, especially Christians, like to claim that there is no morality without God and the Bible. All I’m saying is that Hitler’s Germany illustrates that, in reality, it makes no important difference. The Christians just endorse whatever government is in power. I’m saying that if Christian “morality” really meant anything, there couldn’t have been a holocaust.

    “On the other hand, how can it be forgotten that nazis were hostile to religion?”

    Well, because they weren’t. They used it for their own purposes, made deals with the Church –as did Mussolini– and regardless of the personal beliefs of those in power, they understood religion as a valuable tool for manipulating and controlling the masses.

    Also, the Italians were predominately Catholic, and they supported Mussolini and fascism. In fact, there is nothing inherently anti-fascist about Christianity –quite the opposite.

  54. Simbol
    May 16th, 2005 @ 10:04 pm

    Nazism was not as repressive about religion as was comunism. But it was hostile. Certainly some nazis like Hitler weren’t vociferous against religion for political reasons but some other were, especially Ludendorff , Rosenberg and Himmler and mainly against catholic church as opposed to a national (german) protestantism. Goebbels and Bormann were fiercely anticlerical and Himmler, raised catholic, was worried about organized religion by its political power and specially about Roman Catholicism. In the first truckloads to camps of concentration were pastor and priest who opposed nazism. Besides there was always a problem: Christ was a Jew and how can it be reconciled with antisemitism?. Himmler resolved the problem aryanizing Christ and then, looking for some sort of paganism mixed with some sort of original christianism linked to german past. This blog is a children’s playground when you read the tirades of nazi hierarchy against religion. Some important nazis weren’t atheists but it seem to be that most of then thought main german religions, catholic and protestant, must be forced to make radical changes to fit in the nazi ideology.

    I didn’t say anything about italian facism in my post. Italian facism was different about religion, in fact there was something like a marriage between Vatican and Mussolini, including some quarrels about which would conduct children’s education and about the racist laws. Italian facism was so different that until the racist laws of 1938, jews were allowed in Mussolinis’s party. Even after that if the jew had joined the party at its start. Things changed considerably when Germany took control of Italy

    here is a link related to nazism and religion

  55. jahrta
    May 17th, 2005 @ 9:30 am

    Simbol – you seem like a good guy and you try to remain objective, but i think you tend to over-simplify and idealize too much. For example, your point about republicans working with democrats – I doubt there will ever again be the kind of common ground to pull this nation together under one flag that we saw during WWII, which was the last time we set aside our differences to do something truly great and fight evil in its purest form. In modern times – aside from 911, which now seems as if it were orchestrated at worst, and “allowed to happen” at best by our own administration, for the sole purpose of blinding the people with rage so that they would look the other way to the outright criminal actions of the US government in invading a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with the attack under the guise of defusing WMD that never existed in the first place – we are without such a gudiing force and have subsequently grown stagnant in the absence of a “heavy” to point our finger to and say “that’s what’s wrong with the world today – let’s go fight it!”
    When faced with such stagnation, i is not uncommon for otherwise peaceful people to start examing their neighbors in search of characeristics and personal values that they themselves find to be unwholesome, just so that they can have someone to blame for their problems. In 1930’s Germany, these people were the Jews. War has always been good for the economy of the victorious nation (aside from situations in which said nation was ensnared in a tumultuous guerilla warfare style stand-off for years on end, such as Vietnam, or in the current case of the great quagmyre of commander-in-chief cuckoo bananas, Iraq), and soon after Germany united under the National Socialist party and its raving lunatic commander-in-chief (hmmm….noticing some similarities here), Germany’s economy picked up. Ours hasn’t seemed to pick up much though – quite the opposite. Anyway, my short point to the long-winded statement above is that, barring some incredible paradigm shift or genuine need to destroy a real evil empire (other than the one in which we live) democrats and republicans will never see eye to eye, not least of which because it just seems that most republicans are slimy criminals with ass-backward priorities. other than that though, salt o’ the earth.

    My other point is just to reiterate that creation theory has no place in public schools as it is not based on any science other than “christian science” – a phrase that both makes me laugh and brings the bile to the tip of my throat. if religious fuckwads want their religious fuckwad brainwashed children to learn about creation theory, they should pony up the dough to send them to a parochial school. if i had kids in a school system that tried to pull this shit, you’d find out just how loud one angry atheist man could be.

    and Simbol let me finish by saying that your conversational english is coming along nicely, and that the best way to perfect it is to do just what it is that you are doing by coming here to blog and practice your craft. I hope nothing I have said made you mad – because you do seem like a nice guy with an open mind – but instead made you think.

  56. hermesten
    May 17th, 2005 @ 10:10 am

    Simbol, I’m not really challenging your facts about religion in Nazi Germany, just the interpretation. For instance, when you say: “In the first truckloads to camps of concentration were pastor and priest who opposed nazism.” you suggest that this demonstrates Nazi hostility to religion. I would describe it instead as suggesting hostility to political opposition –of whatever origin.

    When you say:”… Ludendorff , Rosenberg and Himmler and mainly against catholic church as opposed to a national (german) protestantism.” it doesn’t demonstrate a hostility to “religion” but to Catholicism. There is hostility to Catholicism even in the US today, and anyone who knows any history at all is familiar with English hostility to Catholicism. However, even in this hostility is still the recognition that religion has a political value, and the argument is merely over form.

    “Italian facism was so different that until the racist laws of 1938, jews were allowed in Mussolinis’s party.”

    Yes, and the only reason I even mentioned it was to illustrate the fact that there is no inherent hostililty to fascism in Christianity.

    In any case, it’s important to make a distinction between public and private postures about religion. We have a bunch in power in this country who are privately “hostile” to religion in the sense that they think of themselves as intellectuallly superior to the masses who need religion as a force of social cohesion and organization. Our president Lincoln was not a “Christian” but he frequently quoted Bible verses and played up religion for the masses.

    We have two possibilities with the Nazis: 1) they were openly hostile to religion –in which case German Christians tolerated or supported a regime that was hostile to the core values they held dear. This is an even greater indictment of Christian moral vacuity. 2) they were privately hostile to religion but, as sort of a minimum, believed that open hostility risked breeding opposition.

    The evidence as I see it points towards #2, private hostility, public endorsement, but for my original point it doesn’t really make any difference. The fact is that the great majority of Germans were Christians and there was virtually no opposition to Hitler or his methods. In the beginning at least, Hitler was quite popular, and not only among Germans: there were plenty of influential Brits and Americans who thought fascism was just dandy. When Jews were being rounded up it was Christians doing the rounding. When Jews were being killed it was Christians doing the killing. When the Germans were slaughtering Russian civilians it was Christians doing the slaughtering.

    I’m not saying that Christians are any worse than anyone else, just that there is no evidence that they are any better. If their religion was truly a moral force, and they truly believed in it, then significant numbers of Christians would have refused to commit immoral acts. They didn’t. And what did they have to lose? This mortal coil? After all, aren’t they all going to Heaven? Non-believers don’t have the solace of believing they will live some better existence in an after-life.

  57. mhwse
    December 12th, 2008 @ 2:06 pm


    just read your post about the Nazis. (Was originally looking for a place to live without bigotry).

    The German Nazism was (is) a kind of religion; it was borne out of the hate of the Christians, that the Jews killed Jesus (an other Jew).

    2000 years earlier the Romans were the superpower.
    The Romans occupied among many other regions Palestine (think its the Gaza strip today ..). They obviously had a treaty with the Jews to give those the ability to govern themselves.

    The Romans gave the permission to free execution of religion and believe.

    But they let no doubt who was governing. And everyone messing with them was brought down and as a sign of their power justified in public. crucified.

    So thousands ended and died on a bar, later called the cross.

    Which understandable caused younger people started to plan a revolution and stand up against that practice of suppression.

    The Palestinian revolutionist was generated.

    Very important is to recognize that Jesus was not the first.
    There is research in Israel showing those facts.

    And obviously the Romans even tolerated his intentions to cause a riot against the superior class.

    But he overdid it, when he claimed that his father was god.

    That was only meant symbolic!

    The reason why he did that: The Romans took over the Egyptian habit to have their leader inaugurated by the gods and not humans, which gave them the right to execute the ones to oppose instantly, without trial as the gods could not be questioned. (the gods never existed but it was a high cultural gain to have an abstract entity which was free of failure)

    So claiming being gods son caused, the final execution of Jesus by the otherwise so liberal Romans. Their Republicans probably said, enough is enough bring him down.
    (Again Caesar was the representant of god on earth no one else; that was less religion but just a statute to make clear who was the highest and who could order executions etc.)

    The finding Palestinian self destructive revolutionary was completed. (Today we call that guys suicide bombers or terrorists.)

    But the myth that the son of god was killed, was born.

    And here we are 80% of the US population running after an 2000 year old urban myth. And we still got Palestinian terrorists opposing the actual superpower, which has a treaty with Israel permitting and supporting their way to govern themselves.

    I don’t know how but may be there is a way to break that vicious circle.

    First step would be, to restrict all religion in public as it’s bad for body and mind anyways.

    (we need a little note on the respective religious book: can cause premature death, proliferation of disease and irreversible change in state of mind which can lead to mental illness)

    Smoking is permitted, pornography too. Which all is OK as we live in the free west.

    But we know: No drugs and exposure to explicit material to minors. So it should be with religion.

    If that works out and only adults are exposed to that otherwise meaningless story, we could be a step further to free world.

    Think enforcing the parts of the constitution which already define a solution for the problem e.g. separation of government and church will be enough work as the first tiny measure.

    So no talking of religion on presidential or president to be speeches would be the very first thing to enforce.

    Which proves that biblical/koran religion is dangerous and proliferating fascism.

    If some one knows a place, where one can live in peace .. may be post it here. And please no biblical stuff, I get that everywhere, its not more than letters on paper/screen and just an other annoyance.

    thanks, mhwse

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links