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.

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

Cuddles,
Kate

Are you paying close attention?

Good.

Kate is scary, indeed.

Cuddles!
Kate

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.

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.

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

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

Cuddles,
Kate