Even the Ku Klux Klan hates the Westboro Baptist Church (and Vice-Versa!)

19 06 2010

I recently discovered (through the power of Facebook) that the KKK wants to make it clear that they are in no way affiliated with Fred Phelps’s Westboro Baptist Church. I thought this was an interesting bit of information so I decided to use my Google powers to confirm it and learn why an institution founded and propelled by hatred for homosexuals (and anyone not both white and Christian, for that matter) would feel the need to publicly dissociate themselves from another group so focused on an awkward and burning hatred for gays and lesbians. My search led me to the Ku Klux Klan’s website where I noticed the following disclaimer at the bottom of the homepage:

News Release

Disclaimer :

NOTE: The Ku Klux Klan, LLC. has not or EVER will have ANY connection with The “Westboro Baptist Church”. We absolutely repudiate their activities.

After an exhaustive and nauseating search of their site, I could not find any explanation as to why the Klan harbors animosity for the Westboro Baptist Church. My best guess is that they find the WBC’s practice of picketing the funerals of soldiers an abhorrent practice. I’d be willing to bet the KKK would be fine with the church if it stuck to its ‘God hates fags’ policy and left our country’s military alone. In an interesting twist, Fred Phelps & Co. disagree with the racist views held by the KKK.

From Wikipedia

On the subject of neo-Nazis, the KKK, and other violent extremist groups: “We don’t believe in physical violence of any kind, and the Scripture doesn’t support racism. … The only true Nazis in this world are fags.”

So there you have it. It would seem misery does not, in fact, love company.





Effin’ A’s and Internet Atheists

3 05 2010

‘A’ week on Facebook was on the 29th of March through the 6th of April and yet I’d venture a guess that at least half my atheist Facebook friends still have their A’s up or have somehow incorporated them into their regular profile pictures. You’ll note the date is now the third of May.

Why does this irk me? I dunno. It just seems cliquey and exclusionary. You’re with us or you’re against us. We’re all individuals (“Yes, we’re all individuals.”). I wear my atheism proudly. To me it represents my childlike enthusiasm and curiosity for all the wonders of science and nature. What I wonder, however, is how many potential atheists are being turned off or away by this herd mentality. Where’s the focus on the beauty and wonder of the universe, a la Carl Sagan, that brought so many of us where we are today? Where’s the unique humor, a la Douglas Adams, used to expose so many obvious and fantastic truths that, yes, made us laugh, but also made us see the world from a bizarrely right-side-up perspective?

So where are we now? What we have devolved into, I’m afraid, my friends, is an anonymous group of internet atheists, rallying around the flagpole righting wrongs most of us can’t begin to comprehend or at least righting wrongs in a misdirected or misguided manner. Also of note is that when this happens, you end up preaching to the choir or spiral downwards into shouting matches with those who don’t agree with you. Nothing helpful is accomplished. What I’ve found to be true on the internet is that it’s a great place for people to anonymously vent their ire. Following this statement, I’ve come to the conclusion that the vast majority of internet atheists are using anonymity, the internet, and their cause du jour to stifle what could and should be pockets of healthy, rational discussion and debate.

The big question is, how do we get rid of the Internet Atheist meme and get back to a world where the norm is atheists, agnostics and freethinkers having rational (if heated) discourse over important topics? I think we start by getting rid of cliquey memes such as Atheist A’s for profile pics long after A week is over. Imagine if Christians did the same thing? We’d find it unsettling, yes? And they probably find what the Internet Atheists are doing unsettling, as I’m sure many other groups do – and here’s the kicker – I’m including fence-sitters in this. Don’t push them over the fence into the hands of those who would love to take hold and advantage of a vulnerable heart.

If you’re reading this and you have an A up as a profile pic, don’t be offended. Just think to yourself. Do I want the first thing people associate with me to be ‘Atheist’ or ‘Oh, hey, that’s John. We had fun skiing that time together.’

At the very least, do it for me, won’t you?

Please Stop Being an Internet Atheist

Please Stop Being an Internet Atheist

Cuddles,
Kate





Chiropractors: Redefining ‘Cure’ (Feedback)

15 04 2010

I haven’t completed my chiropractor survey yet, but something I’m running into are chiropractors or assistants claiming they can ‘extend my life expectancy’. Some even say this can happen until I die of natural causes as an old woman. So, the question is, what exactly is a cure? Do these claims count as chiropractors claiming they can cure AIDS through chakra realignment and proper flow of energy through spinal manipulation? In my opinion they’re giving the impression they can while covering their bottoms legally. I’m just wondering whether to count these as hits or misses. Feedback is definitely necessary.

Quack





People Find My Site By Various Means

14 04 2010

One savvy internet-user found my lovely blog by googling the phrase, “why are so many atheists scary?”. Well, caller, I have but one response to that.

Are you paying close attention?

Good.

Kate is scary, indeed.

Cuddles!
Kate





Chiropractor Cure-Alls

13 04 2010

What percentage of chiropractors listed in the phone book will claim they can cure AIDS? We’re doing the research. What’s your guess?

Quack





It’s Called Reciprocal Altruism, Mr. Archbold

21 01 2010

Every atheist has heard the argument that a person can have no moral code or sense of altruism without accepting god first. It’s a lazy argument theists use when they choose to ignore reality so I rarely give people the time of day when I note this sentiment oozing out of them like ignorance made manifest. That being said, I find National Catholic Register blogger Matthew Archbold difficult to ignore. Why? I haven’t seen something this offensive and illogical since God Will Take ‘Em Back. Mr. Archbold seems to be upset (masked as patronizing amusement) that the Richard Dawkins Foundation has the audacity to create a charity in which non-believers send aid to Haiti (by way of Doctors Without Borders and the International Red Cross). The nerve!

Writes Archbold
:

I always get a kick out of evangelizing atheists and how they’re so desperate to prove that they’re as good (and usually better) than us religious types. Dawkins writes on the charity’s website: “When donating via Non-Believers Giving Aid, you are helping to counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.” While we should all applaud Mr. Dawkins’ altruistic efforts to help his fellow man I’m just not sure he’s making the point he thinks he’s making.

If Dawkins is running this charity to show up religion and helping Haitians is only a secondary consequence then we could hardly claim that what he’s doing is good by most definitions. Because if that’s true then it would seem that the greatest value of Haitians lives to Dawkins is how they make Dawkins look.

Wow. So, by that logic I assume Christian-specific charities are also out for self-promotion? No? Oh, that’s right. They’re out to promote god. I guess that makes it better somehow. But wait … something seems wrong with that argument. Is Mr. Archbold honestly saying there is something wrong with creating a charity of any sort that contributes to the welfare of people in need? Let’s take your (incorrect) argument for granted and assume Dawkins doesn’t have Haiti’s best interest at heart (he does) and really is out for self-promotion (he isn’t). People are still being helped by his actions, right? If I’m starving and someone offers me food, I’m going to take it and be grateful regardless of the giver’s motives. Anyway, it’s not as though Dawkins invented the idea of secular charity. Plus, if you send your money to a secular charity you can be assured it won’t go towards one of the 600 solar-powered talking Bibles being sent over by one Christian organization. At $100 a piece, that’s $60,000 that could have been used for food, water or medicine. Nauseating.

Also, in case you’ve missed the previous subtle hints, click here to donate to a worthwhile cause.





Breaking News: The Cuddly Atheist Misses Her Dog

17 11 2009

Yeah, people have all kinds of horrid problems, but let’s face it. I’m sexier than they are. Here are some photos of my dog because you care.

Reilly says the pope smelled of mothballs and gardenias.

Shortly after saving a small child from a bullshark

Diverting a train from hitting a stalled bus full of orphans ... WITH HIS MIND

Rescuing me from excessive Christmas cheer

If you feel at all moved, please send five hundred dollars for a pet deposit so I can have my dog back.





Stop Drop and Roll Won’t Work in Hell

14 11 2009

No, I haven’t become a theist. I saw this on a bumper sticker today and was immediately bemused. This has to be close to one of the most offensive Christian bumper stickers I’ve ever seen. It’s like the driver delighted in the idea that non-believers and sinners would burn in an eternal lake of fire.

What’s the most offensive religious bumper sticker you’ve ever seen?





Criticism of Religion Under Attack

13 11 2009

Source

The NGOs, which include Christian, Muslim and Jewish organisations as well as humanist and secular groups from around the world, argue that “unlike traditional defamation laws, which punish false statements of fact that harm individual persons, measures prohibiting the `defamation of religions’ punish the peaceful criticism of ideas”.

Really? The peaceful criticism of religion is so dangerous that measures need to be taken against it? At least in this country it is our right to criticize anything we see fit. Let’s keep it that way.

Another statement counters this by saying, “United Nations resolutions on the `defamation of religions’ are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their thoughts, ideas, and beliefs.” On the other hand, “Such calls will be strengthened as the UN General Assembly looks set to pass another controversial resolution next month entitled “Combating the Defamation of Religion”, its fifth in five years.”

So, it looks like a struggle and one that’s been going on for some time. Let’s just hope we keep our right to say things like, “Islam promotes violence,” “Intelligent design is full of lies,” and “Mormons are complete nutjobs.” And Scientology? Don’t even get me started.

Cuddles,
Kate





Atheist Billboard Comes Down Due to Threats

12 11 2009

In Cincinnati, an atheist billboard came down due to serious threats from multiple sources. The billboard which read, ““Don’t Believe In God? You are not alone” came down Thursday morning, according to this news source. It sounds so innocent, doesn’t it? There was nothing offensive about the wording and yet people were outraged enough to demand its removal. It’s sad that we live in a society where something so benign can be construed as being malevolent and harmful. I call bigotry. This makes me want to start a fund to put up a billboard here in Beaumont, preferably next to the “Jesus, I trust in you” monstrosities. Anyone with me? Good.

Cuddles,
Kate