The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Atheist Holocaust Denier Blames Prejudice for Election Loss

June 7, 2006 | 59 Comments

Montgomery, Alabama, June 8, 2006
Special to The Raving Atheist

Defeated after winning only 44% of the vote in his party’s primary for Alabama state attorney general, Democratic candidate Larry Darby blamed the loss on public misconceptions regarding atheism and Holocaust denial.

“Atheism is just the lack of a belief in a god or gods, nothing more, nothing less,” said Darby. “It doesn’t mean that I reject morality or worship Satan, or require me to take a particular position on any given issue. Unfortunately, old stereotypes are hard to overcome.”

Darby likewise explained that his Holocaust denial was simply a lack of belief in the Holocaust, and that it would be unfair to draw other conclusions from his historical convictions. “Not everyone who disbelieves in the German Final Solution agrees on tax policy, on school vouchers, or even on who’s responsible for controlling the media to spread myths about concentration camps,” he said. Darby pointed out that reasonable people often disagree over the proof and extent of other alleged genocides, and noted that virtually everyone would profess to be a holocaust denier with respect to the Klingon massacre of Ferengis. “I just believe in one less ethnically-based mass extermination than you,” he added.

Some atheist groups distanced themselves from the candidate during the campaign, with Ellen Johnson of American Atheists likening Darby’s embrace of atheism to an attempt to “put lipstick on a pig.” Darby, however, expressed hope that in the future atheists would take a “big tent” approach and welcome both holocaust admitters and deniers. “By the same token, I think there’s enough room in the neo-Nazi inn to accommodate believers and skeptics alike.”


59 Responses to “Atheist Holocaust Denier Blames Prejudice for Election Loss”

  1. Jason Malloy
    June 8th, 2006 @ 7:32 am

    Great, now I’m going to be remembering parts of this and laughing at inappropriate moments all through the day again.

  2. franky
    June 8th, 2006 @ 5:52 pm

    how the hell did he win 44% of the vote? He’s a holocaust-denying, white supremicist atheist, and he won 44% of the vote!

    Maybe, there’s hope for “normal” atheist politicans after all?

  3. mithraman
    June 8th, 2006 @ 8:50 pm

    Oh crap. Why couldn’t it have been one of the “good guy” atheists getting 44%? This is wierd … and bad. Oh, well, the lord works in mysterious ways…. wait.. what the heck am I saying? lord? That’s no good for an atheist to be saying. Oh, this whole thing has me all confused.

  4. Jason Malloy
    June 8th, 2006 @ 9:13 pm

    Thankfully Roy Moore lost the Republican nomination and this asshat lost the Dem nomination, but the numbers were close enough in both cases that you really have to wonder if we should nuke Alabama for our own good.

  5. Space Chimp
    June 9th, 2006 @ 1:46 am

    What kind of quack denies the Holocaust?!?! I can’t believe he was able to gather up 44% of the vote! Only the population of the South could muster up support for someone who doesn’t believe in the Holocaust… Good ol’ Bama…

  6. woody
    June 9th, 2006 @ 3:39 am

    A holocaust-denying, white supremacist winning 44% of a vote in the southern USA is no surprise….. If he had claimed to be an Evangelical Christ psychotic as well he probably would have won.

  7. Lily
    June 9th, 2006 @ 7:00 am

    Ahem… He did not win 44% of the vote. He won 44% of the *Democratic* vote in a primary, or, 162,000 votes. Only about 20% of the population bothered to turn out, which always gives the crazies a better chance. The handwringing in the local press is quite touching and even the Southern Poverty Law Center thinks his showing is a fluke.

  8. jahrta
    June 9th, 2006 @ 9:08 am

    Can someone explain why the hell they chose that name? “Southern Poverty Law Center”? I’ve always found that weird, but not to the extent where I’d bother researching it.

  9. Thorngod
    June 9th, 2006 @ 9:57 am

    I’ve not either, though I’m a member. But I think the org began with suits on behalf of indigent victims of the KKK. I’m not certain of this, and the “Poverty” term IS disconcerting.

  10. Lily
    June 9th, 2006 @ 10:16 am

    Their use of the word poverty is weird since theirs is the biggest, newest and most expensive building in downtown Montgomery. It was a shock when I first saw it.

    But that pales beside my shock the first time I saw Morris Dees and his wife in the Sunday paper in a huge spread about their mansion and it appointments. Ah southern high society. You either belong or you don’t.

  11. bernarda
    June 9th, 2006 @ 11:33 am

    Back to the subject, who cares? The guy is a nut not only because of the question of holocaust denial, but other things he said as well.

    In any case, the holocaust commemorators are no different than him. As Norman Finkelstein called it “the holocaust industry”. Finkelstein attributes this quote to former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, “There is no business like Shoah business.”

    Both sides use it for contemporary political usage and it has nothing to do with history. Why all this brouhaha over the holocaust to the exclusion of everything else. By now the holocaust is ancient history.

    Does anyone know the most extensive holocaust in history? It was the Congo Free State controlled by the King of Belgium at the end of the 19th Century. Estimates are that 12 to 20 million people were killed and the population reduced by half to two-thirds.

    Of course there is no professional Congolese lobby to demand perpetual recognition of their suffering.

  12. Lily
    June 9th, 2006 @ 1:15 pm

    Spoken like a true teenager!

    The holocaust is hardly ancient history. There are still quite a few concentration camp survivors around for whom it was not very long ago at all.

    Remembering the holocaust does not diminish the horrors of Leopold’s brutality and, after all, why bring it up here? The Congolese situation really is “ancient history” as you calculate such things.

  13. bernarda
    June 9th, 2006 @ 2:55 pm

    Oh yeah, trot out the survivors. That really serves a logical argument. 12 % of the population in the U.S. is Afro-American, 2 % is Jewish. Yet there are umpteen Holocaust Museums. In downtown Washington DCl, in Florida, in California, who knows where else.

    There is a slavery museum under construction several dozens of miles from DC. Why was the holocaust industry able to get its museums built in one or two generations while the issue of slavery has none in 150 years?

    The U.S. supported slavery for 200 years. The country has direct responsiblity for it. The U.S. had nothing to do with the holocaust–if you except a few families like the Bushes. There is absolutely no reason to have a holocaust museum in the U.S. But every Southern state and DC should have a slavery museum.

    Oh, but you know, the holocaust was different. Crap! 200 years of slavery is supposed to be less important than a half a dozen years of the holocaust. That is racism.

  14. Lily
    June 9th, 2006 @ 3:04 pm

    It must be hell to always be so angry.

    And your diatribe smells of anti-semitism and explains a lot about you silly, dismissive references to Paul. You must be one of the Democrats who voted for Darby–or would have if you lived in Alabama.

  15. Facehammer
    June 9th, 2006 @ 3:49 pm

    How wrong you are – being angry kicks arse. Maddox is living proof of this.

  16. Chris Treborn
    June 9th, 2006 @ 4:11 pm

    maddox! that godless idiot is the poster boy for what’s wrong with atheism. He’s obnoxious, barely literate and so full of rage it’s a wonder his eyes don’t pop out of their sockets. It’s no great surprise that his brand of agressive and childish “humor” would be popular around here.

  17. Thom
    June 9th, 2006 @ 4:51 pm

    Chris, why do you keep commenting here? Your ad hominem attacks add nothing to the conversation, and obviously no one here gives two shits about anything you have to say. Give it up. You won’t convert any of us, so whats the point?

  18. Chris Treborn
    June 9th, 2006 @ 5:50 pm

    If just one person reads what I write and then looks at Christianity with intellectual honesty I will be satisfied.

  19. Rob
    June 9th, 2006 @ 7:16 pm

    CT, if you can’t look at Christianity with intellectual honesty, how can you expect us to?

  20. Snap Crafter
    June 9th, 2006 @ 7:50 pm

    CT, I do believe that someone just got burned. In the A.

  21. Chris Treborn
    June 9th, 2006 @ 10:31 pm

    Snap Crafter, your insults mean nothing to me, I turn the other cheek to you. I will endure whatever abuse you and others care to engage in. As I said, bringing just one other person to the love of Christ is enough to make it all worthwhile. God bless you, asshole.

  22. allonym
    June 9th, 2006 @ 11:19 pm

    Chris Treborn said: “God bless you, asshole.”

    This fits your definition of “turning the other cheek”? What do you think that expression means? I, for one, could not care less about the baseless insults you so freely spout – to each his own, IMO. As a devout Christ-reborn-ian, though, I would think you’d pay a little closer attention to how well you follow your leader’s teachings. Shame, shame.

  23. Chris Treborn
    June 9th, 2006 @ 11:39 pm

    allonymous, or whatever you call yourself, I turn the other cheek freely. I say God bless you to assholes because I wish God’s love for everyone, even assholes. That is the basic principle of Christian forgiveness. I don’t expect you to understand, but I wish you wel in any case. God bless you, assholes.

  24. Snap Crafter
    June 10th, 2006 @ 12:16 am

    “Snap Crafter, your insults mean nothing to me”

    Thanks for admitting you’re a retard there, Chris. I didn’t insult you, I was congratulating Rob on a good burn.

  25. bernarda
    June 10th, 2006 @ 4:47 am

    “And your diatribe smells of anti-semitism and explains a lot about you silly, dismissive references to Paul. You must be one of the Democrats who voted for Darby–or would have if you lived in Alabama.”

    Lily is good. Two ad hominem attacks in one post.

    She still hasn’t countered my “silly, dismissive references” to Paul. Difficult, because mostly I was quoting Paul.

    As to god and xtianity in general, here is a good sum up.

  26. Facehammer
    June 10th, 2006 @ 6:28 am

    Besides, Chris, who are you to say Maddox is illiterate when you seem to regard spelling and grammar as sinful yourself? In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you’ve featured on the hate mail page with one of your frothing fits of self-righteous rage.

    How very christian of you.

    What is it about natural emotions like anger that you hate so much? Why do you repress yourself so? It can’t possibly be good for you. If you’re going to hate us, be honest with yourself and us and lay it on think, instead of going through all this “mehmehmeh, but god loves you” bollocks.

  27. Realityhack
    June 10th, 2006 @ 6:48 am

    “Of course there is no professional Congolese lobby to demand perpetual recognition of their suffering.”

    There also isn’t a strong neo-King-of-belgum party doing their best to re-take the area. Europe OTOH does have a very strong neo-nazi party which is still a force to be reconed with.

    Are their worse atrocities in human history than the holocost… sure but that does not dimminish its horrors.
    It is also within memory for a significant number of people. So you see a lot about WWII, Vietnam, etc.

  28. Realityhack
    June 10th, 2006 @ 6:55 am

    Interestingly Maddox goes off on illiteracy. Its one of his pet peves.
    I am not really a fan but I wouldn’t go off about how hateful he is either. He seems very frustrated with stupid people… that seems to make up 90% of his rants. Humans are stupid… they do this… etc.
    Actualy from my brousing of his archives he often has a point.

  29. Thom
    June 10th, 2006 @ 12:52 pm

    “If just one person reads what I write and then looks at Christianity with intellectual honesty I will be satisfied.”

    What do you think led us all to atheism? Give me a break man, supressing intellectual honesty is how church leaders have always tended their sheepish flocks.

    “I turn the other cheek to you……God bless you, asshole.”

    You sir, are a first class hypocrtite, like so many of your brethren. Yes “turn the other cheek” and “love your neighbor” but only if they share the same superstitions as you! Whether they were the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, Muslims, nonbelievers or homosexuals, these were the groups that that God’s Chosen People™ were told it was OK to murder, rape, and sell into slavery. Religion (especially the monotheistic ones that demand obeisance to a single imaginary being) is very good at fostering divisions between people and demanding destruction on the basis of differing superstitions.

  30. bernarda
    June 10th, 2006 @ 1:43 pm

    Realityhack, you don’t seem to have traveled much. “Europe OTOH does have a very strong neo-nazi party which is still a force to be reconed with.”

    Which party is that? It certainly has to be much smaller than the Republican Party which is the closest thing to a neo-nazi party I can think of.

    As to this “There also isn’t a strong neo-King-of-belgum party doing their best to re-take the area. “, what is that supposed to mean?

  31. Lily
    June 10th, 2006 @ 2:13 pm

    Good grief, Bernarda, only some one very young and inexperienced has any excuse for making such idiotic statements.

    I know, I know, we have all see Republicans marching down mainstreet shattering the windows of Korean grocers.

    And let’s not forget the spate of synagogue burnings in New Jersey that they instigated.

    Oh, and how they set fire to the Rockport, MA Democratic headquarters! What animals!! When are we going to start jailing them????

    Read today’s paper about the World Cup championships in Germany. You might be interested to learn that Opus Dei marched thru the streets demonstrating and screaming for all foreigners to get out. Uh… No, my bad. It wasn’t Opus Dei. It was neo-nazis.


  32. Da Rat Bastid
    June 10th, 2006 @ 7:05 pm

    Opus Dei? Neo-Nazis? What’s the difference? Hitler was a Christian, you know. He knew Christianity’s purpose and was very efficient in using it to do what it was designed to do; to miguide people and gain power.
    If you are a Neo Nazi, it is then required that you have to be a CHRISTIAN. Or else they beat the crap out of you. Both Opu Dei and Neo Nazis are different departments of the same GLOBAL PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN.
    Lily, what priest told you to take this assignment? I mean, do you actually believe that your bullshit is going to convince anyone that regularly reads this or any other atheist-themed blog to convert?
    How very arrogant. I hope you at least get paid for wasting your time like this.

  33. Chris Treborn
    June 10th, 2006 @ 10:13 pm

    you are wrong rat bastid. Lily has on many occasions put forth arguments that have without doubt led some to think more clearly about our Lord. As soon as the natural bias of the atheist is by passed by a well explained argument then it is possible for the atheist to finally see what we are talking about. The bible contains much, for those who are willing to look. If you refuse to learn you can be held responsible for your ignorance.

  34. Rob
    June 11th, 2006 @ 1:09 am

    Sigh, I don’t think Lily was trying to argue for her religion there, (though I’ll admit that her usual condescending tone, this time to Bernada, made it seem that way, particularly with her gratuitous mention of the Opus Dei). Now you managed to bring out her inarticulate lap-dog Chris T, who again makes arguments of no substance. Chris T, answer this question honestly, and without evasion. Don’t answer it to me, answer it for yourself. What, in your mind, would convince you that there is no Lord as depicted in the old and new testament? If you can’t supply an answer to this question, then I would have to assume that you can’t help but view the world with jesus-colored glasses and that your claims of intellectual honesty is a sham.

  35. bernarda
    June 11th, 2006 @ 2:31 am

    Lily, those neo-nazis represent what percentage of the population? Neo-nazi parties in europe get what percentage of the vote? Anyone who says neo-nazi parties are strong in europe is either ignorant or an idiot.

    Bush and the Republican Party have done worse than marching in the streets and breaking windows. They passed the neo-nazi “Patriot Act”. The “Patriot Act” strangely resembles Hitler’s 1933 “Enabling Act” which overrode the German constitution.

    The neo-nazi Bush Administration has set up secret prisons around the world, Guantanamo is only the most famous. It imprisons people indefinitely without charge. Hitler set up the camp of Dachau for the same purposes.

    The Bush administration spies on and intimidates its opponents, just as Hitler did to his.

    Bush and the Republican Party certainly act like neo-nazis.

  36. Michael Bains
    June 11th, 2006 @ 6:57 am

    You’re just a funny guy.

  37. Lily
    June 11th, 2006 @ 8:22 am


    Flinging accusations of “Neo-nazi”, just like flinging accusations of “racist” in wildly inappropriate contexts has devalued both words to the point that they have no sting left and are just so much meaningless noise.

    What would it mean to say accurately that the Repubs are acting like neo-nazis?


    a bill in Congress that makes it illegal for atheists to hold office?

    a law that decriminalizes shooting illegal immigrants as they cross the border?

    a law that removes all firearms from citizens?

    The Patriot Act in no way resembles the Enabling Act. What provisions make you believe that?

    Gee, its funny. Despite the fact the Europeans and the left desperately want the secret prisons to be true, no one to this day, including the official investigators, can find hide nor hair of them and have sorrowfully concluded that they don’t exist (probably. Hope springs eternal, you know).

    Try again.

  38. Lily
    June 11th, 2006 @ 8:36 am

    Rob: I am completely baffled by your comment (#34). What would lead anyone to suppose I was arguing for my religion in my comment (#31)? The subject was the sloppy anti-semitism Bernarda was coming close to espousing (or espousing–let’s give her the benefit of the doubt).

    How on earth was my mention of Opus Dei gratuitous? I used a common literary device to call attention to my point. Opus Dei is not likely to be marching through the streets calling for foreigners to be kicked out. If, at the time, I could have thought of any equally unlikely group, I would have used them to illustrate my point.

    Do I really have to explain things like this? Or do atheists merely respond unthinkingly like so many pavlovian dogs to any mention of anyone or anything connected to religion?

    If that sounds condescending, good. You all have as much responsibility for arguing honestly and reading the posts you respond to honestly, as we theists do.

  39. Jason Malloy
    June 11th, 2006 @ 8:46 am

    Ha, the guy is a neo-nazi, and yet the large newspaper headline cries:

    Why did Valley vote for atheist?

  40. monkeysuncle
    June 11th, 2006 @ 10:15 am

    Larry Darby: The Man Who Would Be Attorney General

  41. bernarda
    June 12th, 2006 @ 12:14 am

    Lily has as much trouble reading political news as she does reading the bible, “The Patriot Act in no way resembles the Enabling Act. What provisions make you believe that?”

    As Bill Moyers describes it “George W. Bush’s kinder, gentler fascism”.

    “Allied in a battle to reform certain aspects of the Act are well-known Conservative pundit and former Republican Senator Bob Barr and Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin — The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Conservative Union. ”

    The two sites I link have themselves many more links. Really Lily, you should learn to do basic searches yourself on internet. But you seem to be of the school: my mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts. In addition, you continue to use ad hominem attacks. About time you grew up and learned how to argue a specific point.

  42. Lily
    June 12th, 2006 @ 4:42 am

    You are so blinded by your anger and your need to spew venom that it is not worth arguing with you any longer, Bernarda. I will merely clean up your latest mess and move on.

    There is no comparison between the enabling act and the Patriot Act to be made. Your “sources” are ridiculous. The PBS doesn’t make the comparison; it merely states some of the provisions of the Patriot Act. The other is a tendentious piece of crap assembled by what? The College Leftists?

    For your information and that of your fellow sophomores; the enabling act gave Hitler the power to rule by decree–

    1. he could and did legally suspend the German constitution because any law he decreed that deviated from the constitution became law within 24 hours of being published in the German equivalent of the Congressional Record.

    2. No laws Hitler declared needed the approval of the parliament (Reichstag )

    3. His cabinet coud make the budget and borrow money on its own authority (no bothering with parliament)

    4. Hitler could make treaties with foreign powers without approval of parliament.

    Google is a wonderful tool, as long as you know how to evaluate the credibility of the sources you consult. You don’t.

  43. bernarda
    June 12th, 2006 @ 8:53 am

    Lily, has there ever been a jesus freak who was not a complete moron? You are not an exception. You don’t even understand the issue. Sure, you know much more about it than people like Bill Moyers and the others mentioned.

    Go back to bible-thumping, it seems to be the only thing you have ever learned.

  44. Lily
    June 12th, 2006 @ 9:00 am

    Get help. Seriously.

    That level of rage and incoherent spewing is not normal.

  45. Thorngod
    June 12th, 2006 @ 9:03 am

    Dubya has appended so-called “signing papers” to over 700 laws passed during his 1½ terms. These unconstitutional addenda supposedly permit him to ignore the laws. That’s pretty damned “enabling.”

  46. Lily
    June 12th, 2006 @ 9:35 am

    Not even close, Thorn. Even you aren’t claiming here that these signing papers allow him to ignore the laws. Just “supposedly” .

    Moreover, what laws can he ignore? Some? All? Is he legally entitled to suspend the constitution? Does his word become law within 24 hours of his idea (whatever it may be) being published in the Congressional Record?

    Let’s get our facts in order first and then we will see what to make of them.

  47. bernarda
    June 12th, 2006 @ 1:25 pm

    Lily, “Let’s get our facts in order first and then we will see what to make of them.”

    Lily, you wouldn’t recognize a fact if it bit you in the ass.

  48. Thorngod
    June 12th, 2006 @ 3:29 pm

    Lily, I must confess that I do not know what those 700+ laws were, let alone the exclusions claimed in the “signing papers.”
    However, as you know, one exemption our imperious Prez has claimed–the most notorious–is in regard to the FISA provisions for court review of wiretaps. Sen. Specter and others, as you probably also know, are trying to get an accounting, but so far with no success. If the law in this case has been subverted or ignored, it is a serious infringement and an impeachable act. The appeal to national security interests, even if not spurious, remains immaterial.
    . But even this is not the most nefarious act of which Bush and company are guilty. The damage they have done in the areas of health–such as restrictions on stem cell research, blocking of the Plan B contraceptive and use of the papilloma virus vaccine, against the overwhelming recommendations of medical scientists
    –is just one area. The “faith based” subsidies is another, and one that is at the very least Constitutionally questionable.
    . The smallness of Bush’s mentality is patent in his rediculous proposal for an anti-gay-marriage amendment to the Constitution, a matter that every honest jurist and legal scholar and intelligent citizen knows does not rise above the level of ordinary legislation. There is an increasing plurality of opinion among his critics that this is the worst president the nation has ever suffered. I, for one, was of that opinion quite early.
    . One of the memorable convincers for me was the name originally given by the Bush gang to the Iraq invasion. Do you recall that title? “Infinite Justice”! My jaw dropped when I first heard it. Were they actually so dumb that they didn’t understand the implication of the phrase? Or could they actually be so audacious as to be claiming a commission from God? –And interestingly enough, it was not a Christian cleric who apprised them of their imperious faux pas, but a group of Muslims! This gang has been laughable in its intellectual paucity, and detestible in its disregard for domestic fairness and the respect of the world.
    . Well, I seem to be rambling. The subject is all but inexhaustable. I will retire and await your tirade.

  49. Realityhack
    June 12th, 2006 @ 6:19 pm

    — Quote from Brenda —
    Realityhack, you don’t seem to have traveled much. “Europe OTOH does have a very strong neo-nazi party which is still a force to be reconed with.”

    Which party is that? It certainly has to be much smaller than the Republican Party which is the closest thing to a neo-nazi party I can think of.
    — End quote—

    You would probobly be supprised by how much I despise the republican party, especialy the current ‘neo-con’ movement. However if this is the closest thing to a modern nazi political party you can think of I would humbly suggest it is you who needs to do some reading up.

    — Quote from Brenda —
    As to this “There also isn’t a strong neo-King-of-belgum party doing their best to re-take the area. “, what is that supposed to mean?
    — End Quote —

    It means that perhapse if there where an active group of people seeking to continue where the king of belgum left off in his massicure that you might see a diffrent treatment of the subject. You brought up that there have been worse atrocities historicaly… I was simply pointing out that you in the case of the hollocost you still have people around who think it was a wonderful thing. Thats part of the diffrent treatment.

    Is everything in history treated ‘fairly’ according to the gravity of what happend etc? Of course not. And I don’t think anyone here would claim it is. But I think you betray a seriese of severe preduduces through your rants.

  50. Realityhack
    June 12th, 2006 @ 6:28 pm

    Re: Enabling acts / Patriot Act

    Certainly compairisons can be made between the enabling acts and other dictitorial regemes laws, and the patriot act. However the patriot act -Does not equal- the enabling acts. Claming otherwise is truely ignorant.

    It would be foolish and ignorat to claim that Bush has not claimed the right to any clearly extra-constitutional powers.
    However I do not see it as likely that he will install himself as dictator and fail to hand over office at the end of his term. Compairisons may be warented but they should stop when the similarities run out.

  51. Lily
    June 12th, 2006 @ 7:18 pm

    Thorn: I got all excited by your message– civil, interesting, good questions and then … “I will await your tirade”. I was crushed.

    Well, ok that is a trifle exaggerated but honestly, how often do you all address me and other Christians as morons, liars, fools, etc. ? It gets to be tiresome and offensive.

    Nevertheless, I shall take the high road which so infuriated Snap and speak to some of the issues you raised.

    First, it took me awhile but I finally figured out that what you all meant were “signing statements”. These are in no way nefarious, nor are the unique to Mr. Bush. Mr. Reagan issued them and President Clinton issued more than Pres. Reagan.

    So what are they? They are a statement by the president explaining what his understanding of the meaning of the law is that he signs. They are supposed to be the equivalent of the deliberations and the intent of Congress that the Supreme court takes into account (supposedly) , when they rule on the constitutionality of a law, Congress has passed. This is all laid out very nicely in a blog post by lawyer Stuart Buck:


    FISA is dicey but not nearly so clear cut as I think you think. All the other issues you point to (anti-gay marriage, anti-stem cell research, faith based subsidies) are issues with which a huge number of Americans are in total agreement. Democracy is messy, isn’t it?

  52. Snap Crafter
    June 12th, 2006 @ 7:50 pm

    “Nevertheless, I shall take the high road which so infuriated Snap and speak to some of the issues you raised.”

    I hope your joking Lily dear, ’cause you never took any sort of high road, it was your lack thereof that infuriated me.

  53. Jonathan Bloomer
    June 14th, 2006 @ 7:03 pm

    How can someone deny the execution of 6million human beings? I am an athiest because I base the majority of my beliefs on EVIDENCE and not ideological delusions. It is at moments like this that we must remember that what the Nazis did is a warning to all of us it was possible for the Holocaust during the Nazis reign of terror and remains possible for it to happen again any moment.

    We MUST NOT let views like this prevail beause as the last survivours of the Holocaust leave us this is an important moment in our history to make that THEIR views are the ones that stay with us and not that those of the extreme right.

  54. Thorngod
    June 21st, 2006 @ 1:57 am

    JB, I’m in complete empathy with your concern, and it’s truly lamentable that humanity has such a short attention span. Memory isn’t the only thing we’re short on, and in spite of my fervent wishes, I fear the human race will continue to live up to it’s sorry reputation. As horrendous as the “Hollocaust” was, it was merely another in our ongoing demonstrations of our superior beastiality. The Jews are an unlucky lot. They were shat upon by their own God, and instead of denouncing him for his cruelty, they praised and worshipped and glorified him for his claim of exclusivity. I admire the Jewish race for several things, but for nothing more than for bearing up under such a tyrannical god! I must salute you for your obstinacy, though not for your practicality. You should have shed your god before Paul got hold of him. The early Christian fathers, to curry favor with their Roman masters, scapegoated you “Christ-killers,” and condemned you to calumny and pogram for 2000 years–and still counting. Ask Lily for complete details! Catholics are now looking for the two requisite miracles for the canonization of the late Pope John Paul. Forget the miracles, my catholic brethren; he deserves sainthood for two human acts: the exoneration of Galileo for telling the truth about the solar system, and his forgiveness of contemporary Jews for complicity in the murder of Jesus. Holy shit! Is the Holy Roman Church actually becoming humanized? Halleluja! Only two millennia to determine the innocence of six million jews! Only 500 years to perceive the error in the Biblical configuration of the cellestial spheres and exonerate Galileo. But God always sets things right–in his own good time. If you’re an American, Jonathan, you might be wise to change your last name as soon as possible. Hitler needed only a few years to demonize the Jews in Germany. Even in Paine’s and Jefferson’s America, you can’t be too confident!

  55. Some Guy
    June 21st, 2006 @ 10:37 am

    Oh come on.

  56. Thorngod
    June 21st, 2006 @ 11:09 am

    Where? Where?

  57. Smash Zion
    June 22nd, 2006 @ 12:01 am

    You judeophiles need people like Darby.
    Need the enemy, need Satan, someone to point at and say “look at the bad man”.
    This war in Iraq is for Israel.

    I hope the old and corpulent holocaust survivors on their deathbed feel the worldwide slap in the face as their money raking lie is exposed. That they will be leaving the world in the hands of “anti-semites”, that Moses, Abraham, Marx and Freud will be placed into the dust heap of history.

  58. Timblisi
    June 24th, 2006 @ 1:54 pm

    I’ve been reading posts all over this website, and it’s time to finally write something. Although it was directed at someone else, I will respond anyways to Rob’s question, “What would convice you that there is no Lord as depicted in the old and new testament?” The answer is: Absolutely nothing. I am firmly convinced that there is absolutely nothing that could ever happen that would ever convince me that God does not exist. Why? Because I have experienced too much in life that confirms sciptural expectations to ever believe that God does not exist. I would love to tell you about some of those experiences, but I understand, sadly, that you will more than likely simply dismiss everything I say as either fabricated or imaginary – in effect, calling me a liar or a lunatic. In so doing, you assume that you, in fact, know everything about how the world we live in works by denying the fact that there is more to life than meets the eye, and in assuming that anything that does not meet your understanding is false, you basically make yourself out to be as omniscient as the God whose existence you deny. In the absence of such an assumption of your own omniscience, you must then assume that it is entirely possible that God may, actually exist. Given the fact that none of us can accomplish the simple act of scoring 100% on every human-created written exam we ever take where one of our own kind understands the answers well enough to create the test, I think it’s no large leap of logic to assume that some of the deeper, hidden workings of the universe around us might be a little bit beyond our comprehension.

    Lastly, one more point: I find it fascinating that so often a person decides not to believe in God because of the actions of other people. In other words, nothing seems to shake people’s faith in God more than finding out that human beings really are as evil as the Bible says they are.

  59. Hebes never Suffered
    June 29th, 2006 @ 12:38 am

    God exists, is evil (in the Romantic, European sense), and works for the jews.
    Yahweh himself, setting up 9-11 so that the Shabbat goyim masses would fight a great racial war in middle east and the jews would collect all the spoils of that war = Very in keeping with the Old Testament. This era would see the jews at their highest peak of spiritual cosa nostra, letting gullible gentiles do the dirty work where in the bible they had to DIY.

  • 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