The Rainbow Choice

What is the scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic?  Truth be told, little evidence has been shown.  And for reasons I shouldn't have to explain to you, to say that homosexuality is a trait passed on from one generation to the next, especially in the animal kingdom, is a little absurd, withstanding genes interacting with one another causing genetic anomalies.  Now, what is the evidence that homosexuality is biological?  Well, plenty.  In fact, all of the evidence points in that direction. 1) A gay man, no matter how hard he tries, cannot make himself straight.  He will, in fact, have a better chance of succeeding in suicide than conversion, at a clinic such as Marcus Bachmann's. 2) Homosexuality happens in nature. Naturally in nature.  Each year, more species are found to have homosexual minorities, from penguins to meer kats. 3) Homosexual males and females have been shown in tests to have physical differences (not only in their mannerisms, but physical, biophysical differences) from straight members of the same sex, as well as similarities between gay members of one sex, and straight members of the other.

These are just three examples of what I'm going to cover in this blog.  Skepticism gives me a pretty wide range of subjects to deal with, and this one is one that I've been itching to do since I first heard that there was one of these camps only tens of miles from me - an embarrassment on an otherwise blue state, to say the least.

Despite, many people choose to remain denialists of biological homosexuality, and choose to remain ignorant of the evidence.  This is nothing new, and per usual, it stems from religion/superstition in most cases.  They cannot accept that God would create people who are an abomination against Jewish tribal laws written by people who sacrificed cows to the sun, and believed the world to be flat.  It is truly a disorder if I've ever seen one, and trust me, I've seen my share.  How can these people, putting superstitious nonsense aside, actually think people would make a decision to be a ridiculed and oppressed minority?  How can people think one can chose their own sexual orientation?  I didn't choose to be straight, nor did any actual straight person (barring those like Marcus Bachmann who are putting on an act because they hate something about themselves).  I guess the only answer is this: Willful ignorance.

Willful ignorance is a powerful force in this world, and is leading the crusade against science in our world.  You see it with evolution, climate change, the mapping of the human genome itself, and you certainly see it with homosexuality.  Naivity is another force because there are those who capitalize on the naivity of others by providing either misleading information, or all-out lies.  Among the top of these activists who hasn't been caught with another person of the same sex, or a child of the same sex, is the reverend Fred Phelps.

Phelps is the head of the Westboro Baptist Church - the group that protests military funerals because they feel the deaths of soldiers to be God's retribution against the sinful culture of the United States, Canada, and Europe.  Their website is entitled godhatesfags.com, if that gives you any precept of whom we're dealing with here.  Phelps has been quoted in saying many things regarding gays, such as this:

"It’s NOT OK to be gay. It will damn the soul, destroy the life, and doom any nation that tolerates such evil. God Hates Fags is a profound theological statement, which America needs more than it needs oxygen or bread."

The first thing I'd like to point out is that nowhere in Moslow's necessities of life is theology, let alone violent, hateful theology.  I'm pretty sure I need to put water and food into my body more than I need to "accept" that "God hates fags."  Secondly, and with less jest, the entirety of this statement is theologically based, and therefore, meaningless.  Phelps does, however, openly claim that homosexuality is a choice, and that any homosexual can choose to be straight, and should do so immediately.

Phelps is not alone in this belief.  Among the many crazies in history like Rabbi Yehuda Levin, Bishop Harry Jackson, Michael Marcavage, Madeline Crabb, Pat Buchanann, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others, one of today's leading crusaders against homosexuality is James Hartline.

James Hartline had this to say regarding homosexual behavior:

"I am a man with the greatest of concern for my fellow Christian. In my daily course of life, I see the great burden being thrust upon the American Christian by satanic forces who are determined to wipe out every vestige of Biblical influence in this once godly nation. Everyday, I speak with moms and dads who are brokenhearted that their sons and daughters have had their vulnerable minds hijacked by advocates representing the Spirit of Sodom. Those dark, socialistic engineers of a resurrected Sodom are determined, in their rebellion against the throne of God, to plant a massive crop of what the Bible calls the 'Vine of Sodom'."

I'm seeing a pattern here.  Could it be that the world's leading anti-gay activists are all people of deep-rooted religion?  That can't be.  There must be someone of a scientific origin with a scientific argument against homosexuality, right?  I mean, just one?  Maybe?  Someone who won't say something like, "Gay sympathy in schools will destroy America, the world, and quite possibly the universe."  I happened across one who was pretending to take a scientific approach to homosexuality.  His name is Luiz Sergio Solimeo, the author of the book Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.

This book explores the scientific arguments that homosexuality is physiological, and contends that science cannot prove the claims that homosexuality is "genetic," or irreversible.  He also says the animal homosexuality argument is nothing more than a myth.  Would you like to read more?  I surely would.  Here is how he sums up his reasoning that the animal argument is a false argument:

"The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature? In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:

1. There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
2. It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
3. Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man."

Let me just run through this step by step, as the author has seemingly taken a religious turn, no matter how much I tried to find an argument that wouldn't.  The first problem with this argument is that he's done what so many others have: used the classic reductio ad absurdum to discredit the initial argument.  He's claiming that if we justify one behavior because it's natural in the animal kingdom, then we have to justify them all.  This is like comparing homosexuality to murder or cannibalism.  Oops, no wait, that exactly what he just did.  He doesn't seem to understand social construct.  We have many instincts as animals that we've slowly honed out of ourselves, or teach against, in modern society, because they don't fit in with what we define as civilized culture.  We don't condone murder, cannibalism, infanticide, rape, racism, sexism, or any of these other components that are merely extensions of our animal brains; most of which are summed up with the word xenophobia. 

Xenophobia probably helped us a lot in our evolution, as it is a form of false positive reasoning.  I don't know if that other tribe is here to kill me or befriend me, but I have nothing to lose if I take the highroad and fear them.  Fear leads to hate, and hate leads to murder: yet another activity that we don't condone as humans (at least secular culture doesn't).  However, to align homosexuality with any of these natural instincts is inane at best.  We have natural instincts to eat, sleep, cry, sweat, drink, fornicate, procreate, consume, and so on, yet we don't compare these things to murder.  Why not?  It's the exact same thing.  The only difference is that the instinct to fornicate and procreate is slightly altered within homosexuals, although, most homosexuals still feel parental instincts and maternal/paternal clocks just like the rest of us.

The reduction of all instincts into one broad spectrum of contempt is an intentionally misleading, dishonest argument and holds absolutely no scientific water.  In the same respect, xenophobia seems to be an instinct that this author has absolutely no problem with.

Aside from this point, this argument neglects to dispute homosexuality as a natural behavior, which is the entire point of the animal kingdom argument.  I would also like to point out that this man must be either a psychologist (sorry to pick on the field again, but this is one of my largest complaints about the philosophy of psychology itself) or an engineer, as only one of those two groups would make a comment so stupid as to say that it is "poor science to read human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior."  There is not a human instinct, action or presupposition that is not an extension of our animal instincts placed on a more complex scale.  Any biologist will tell you that; any neurologist will tell you that.

He went on to say:

"To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.

Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.

Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.

In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.

At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal 'filicide,' 'cannibalism' and 'homosexuality.'"

Once again, the reductio ad absurdem argument returns; therefore, I will not explain it again.  Once is enough for such an intellectually void and scientifically odious argument.  I will, however, mention that the author seems to have a very unclear perception of not only consciousness, but also brain activity in general.  It almost appears as if he's using arguments that would be made by a phrenologist.  Is animal behavior bound by the physical laws of the governing mineral world?  Interesting way of putting it, but yes, to an extent.  We do, however, obviously have a great ability to evolve and adapt to our circumstances.  Adapting to circumstances and climate is what drives evolution, and hence, is the reason we're here right now to talk about adapting.  And of course all animals respond to internal and external stimuli.  This is what shapes our lives and most of our decisions.  This is granted, but I'm still not seeing the connection with homosexuality.

He says something in his second paragraph that sort of confuses me a bit, though.  He states that all animals "lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception.  Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another."  So, how then to animals form packs if they frequently confuse other members of their species?  I always thought that sight and smell were two of the primary functions of animals that allowed them to detect those with whom they're familiar, but according to Solimeo, the frequently confuse these senses as well.  In other words, he's saying that animals can't really tell a tree trunk from a lion?  Because if that were true, I'm not so sure evolution would have brought us this far.  This argument could be true of some animals that display homosexuality. 

With my background in evolutionary biology, needless to say, I've done my fair share of work with fruit flies.  Fruit flies are certainly an evolutionary anomoloy.  Some of them have developed a third and fourth wing, which are both entirely dysfunctional, if not completely useless and disruptive to their existing, functional wings.  They have an uncanny ability to smell food as well, but seem to have a horrible ability to sense one another with smell.  The problem is that this is how fruit flies identify mates.  They identify possible mates through smell, which they are actually quite horrible at, hence, this could easily explain homosexuality in fruit flies.

However, other animals don't seem to have any problem at all identifying mates: animals as small as dung flies.  In fact, an evolutionary trait of some animals is the ability to disguise themselves as the opposite sex in order to confuse other male contenders.  They will mate with a female while other males pursue them, and quite often unsuccessfully (obviously) fornicate with them in between the initial male's copulations.  This vastly decreases sexual competition, which is certainly to the advantage of the male fish with this ability.  The most noted creature with this capability is the Goodeidae.  If the Goodeidae family of fish were incapable of detecting the sex of another fish, then this evolutionary adaptation wouldn't work one bit, or at least, would not work most of the time.  But it does, and it continues an amazing success rate among this teleost family of fish.

In another case, there is a species of albatross knows as the Laysan (Phoebastria immutabilis) which are known for their lesbian couples.  The species is a monogamous species, but does not always pair up with mates of the opposite sex.  In fact, the female's, in over one-third of observed cases, mate with a male, then split with the male to pair up with a fellow female Laysan albatross.  They do this for a very good reason: It greatly benefits the species.  Female Laysans have learned what many human women have yet to learn, which is that the female sex is much more successful at child-rearing than is the male sex.  They also use this technique to avoid divorce, as with a female partner, she is not likely to be lured away to fornicate with another female.  This is a case of homosexual coupling, but not homosexual mating.  It is a perfectly illustrates a deliberate sociobiological system wherein homosexuality is practiced, and certainly not by mistake.  And if this can illustrate a successful mating program wherein homosexual coupling is successful, what does it say for humans who do the same?  The success rates are similar, as children raised in homosexual households seem to grow up as better-adjusted individuals and average significantly higher levels of both education and income.  But I guess that could just be the gay agenda, right?

I won't spend too much time on this argument, as it's irrelevant, but I've heard it enough to make a slight mention.  There are those who claim that our culture is flying deeper and deeper into a fiery pit because the media is forcing a gay agenda upon us with shows like Will and Grace, Modern Family, Queer Eye, and others.  Can I just say that I've watched all of these shows and I don't feel any significant homosexual tendencies.  In fact, I'm also a fan of Rick and Steve, and my life has yet to spin into a circle of gay orgies and drugs, so I think I'm all right.  What isn't mentioned when these people spout this conspiracy thesis is the fact that the gay community needs shows like these to show bigoted, straight, religious people that they're just like everyone else: the same problems, the same confusions, but with one added stress to their lives.  The gay community needs good PR just like the atheist community does; just like the Muslim community does; just like the Christian community does; just like the Jewish community does.  And all of these sects have their own media PR circles, just as they should.  Bigots are everywhere and hate everyone, and nobody is safe from them.  And frankly, being an atheist myself, I know what it's like to be a part of a minority who is constantly demonized, and every homosexual on this planet feels the same.  We need it.

So, while I'm still looking for a truly scientific argument against homosexuality, I'm starting to wonder if I'll ever actually find one.  I know that there probably aren't any, but I'm still looking.  It just appears to be the logical conclusion, based on contemporary as well as traditional research, is that homosexuality is a result of many composite factors, including genetics, environment, and hormonal influences, which when commingled, make the proverbial "perfect soup."  One cannot isolate purely in a genetic format, as far too many genetic twins differentiate in sexual persuasion, as has been illustrated in the studies performed by the Twin Studies of Bearman and Bruckner (2002).  In this light, one cannot base it too far on upbringing either.  This does not mean, however, that the genetic option isn't a factor.  It could even be a rather large one.  Maternal linkage has been a long-studied hypothesis with very significant results.  In Hamer et al (1993), Sanders et al (1998), and Hu et al (1995), a link was made on the X chromosome, gene marker Xq28.  In rigorous studies, they found that a significant number of gay men tested in their studies had relatively high amounts of gay uncles or cousins on their mother's side.  The standout marker was, as I mentioned before, Xq28.  This study was later refuted in 1999 by Rice et al, which argued that there was no evidence at all of linkage of microsatellite markers at Xq28.  But this was not the end, as later Meta-analysis has showed that additional genes must be present to account for heritability of sexual orientation.  A later study performed in 2005 scanned the genomes of the subjects and families who participated in both Hamer and Hu, and added additional subjects, concluding that while Xq28's significance may have been overstated in Hamer, two other genes showed near significance, and one other, 10q26, showed significant maternal loading, thus adding validity to the family studies previously thought to be refuted.

One thing not mentioned in any of these studies was birth order, which I would really love to look at in the Twin Studies performed by Bearman and Bruckner.  Later sexual orientation studies included a lot of wild claims, but some of them turned out to be incredibly valid, which was the case in Blanchard and Klassen's Fraternal Birth Order study of sexual orientation (1997).  The two concluded the younger a brother is in the family, the greater chance of being a homosexual.  In fact, each older brother adds as high as a 48% chance of homosexuality.  This conclusion wasn't reached by statistics, however.  There is strict, hard science to go along with it.  An in-utero environmental causation has been shown that is linked to a maternal immune response linked to HY antigens.  HY antigens are involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates.  Maternal H-Y antibodies remember and react to specific H-Y antigens.  Much like any other antibody, it is going to attack anything it perceives as an invader, which, unfortunately for the younger brother, is going to be his H-Y antigens, and therefore, decrease the antigens' ability to masculinise the brain.  Obviously, this effect varies, which has been the origin of much of its criticism, but it still stands today as a prevailing theory, and none of its opponent "external sibling order" hypotheses have come to explain the link between boys of later birth moved into adopted households without adopted brothers who are also prone to this effect.

Certainly, this effect may even grow deeper, as the physiological differences between straight men and gay men, as well as straight women and gay women, as well as the similarities between gay men and straight women, seem to fall right into this theory of the brain not undergoing proper masculinisation.  As reported by the BBC in 2008, studies have found that gay men and straight women share have an equal average proportion of brain hemispheres.  Straight men and lesbian women also share extraordinarily similar hemisphere proportions, including one anomaly: slightly larger right hemispheres.  According to a paper published in Science by Simon Levay (1991), the average size of the INAH 3 (the third interstitial of the anterior hypothalamus) in gay men is approximately the same size as it is in women.  It's significantly smaller and the cells are far more densely packed than they are in those of heterosexual males.  McFadden (2002) also notes that the functioning of the inner ear and central auditory system in bisexual women and lesbians far resembles the functioning of non-gay men, far more than it does straight women.  These are two significant physiological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals of the same gender that primarily relate to the brain.  I'm leaving out research that states other differences such as the varying size of the suprachiasmatic nucleus, as well as varying activity in the amygdala, between straight and gay men, simply because these trial results have yet to be duplicated enough times to appease my hungry scientific mind.  Whereas in the case of the INAH3 study, it was duplicated with the same results by its largest detractor, which in science, means everything.

While I'll always say that correlation does not mean causation, many rather significant correlations have been made to varying brain activity as well as the relative sizes of certain areas of the brain and sexual preference.  What this means is that this is an area of sexual orientation science that needs to be explored further, and if trends predict anything, more significant variations will certainly be found, leading us to conclusive evidence of the cause(s) of homosexuality.

But in the end, I will always say that the best test of all is the Myth Busters form of investigation: Just ask.  We all know at least one homosexual.  Just ask him or her if he or she chose to be this way.  Not only will you get a resounding no, but you'll also receive a question in return: Why the hell would I have chosen to be this way?  It's not that, in asking such a question, they're admitting to being ashamed of who they are.  They are, however, illustrating how their lives have been, being so different from everyone else, and probably having to keep such a huge part of themselves secret from their friends and family for years upon years upon years.  Who in the world would choose such a thing?  A better question: Why do we live in a society where people have to hide who they are.

Whether homosexuality is a combination of genetic, biological, and environmental factors, or if one of these factors are dominant, it's obvious that a conscious choice was not made by the individual that determined his or her sexual identity and/or orientation.  And let us also keep in mind that even though most scientists would refer to homosexuality as a genetic defect, that doesn't imply negative connotation.  My height is a genetic defect, and so is the color of my eyes.  Any kind of genetic abnormality is a defect.

In summation, there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a choice, nor is there evidence to suggest one can alter their sexual preference any more than they could alter the shape of their face or the length of their arms through sheer will.  There are mountains of evidence to suggest that homosexuality is biological and, to loosely use the term, genetic.  Environmental factors are also at play, but only when combined with preexisting biological components.  Homosexuality is in no way, shape, or form a choice consciously made by humans or other animals.

Christine "Did She Really Just Say That" O'Donnell

This morning in Delaware, Tea Party candidate for senate, Christine O'Donnell, criticized Democratic nominee, Chris Coons, by claiming that the teaching of creationism in public schools is not a violation of the First Amendment. O'Donnell continued her idiocy by asking where in the First Amendment is there any mention of the separation of church and state. Coons' response was that the First Amendment bars congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion. O'Donnell's retort was, "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

So, apparently O'Donnell is just one of many Tea Party members who have not actually read the constitution they claim to hold so dear. And although you're not alone on this view, Ms. O'Donnell, there's one person who tends to disagree with you and the rest of your bat-shit party. That man is former US president, and author of the First Amendment, Mr. Thomas Jefferson. Let's see what he has to say about the separation of church and state:

“Mr. President,

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, the he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of the conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and the creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.”

Thomas Jefferson

January 1, 1802

Wait, what just happened? Are you telling me that not only did the First Amendment intend for a separation of church ans state, but Mr. Jefferson himself coined the term "Wall of Separation?" Why yes, that is what just happened here. I'll be sitting by my computer awaiting your next idiotic claim about the founding of this country. But until then, let me leave you with my favorite Jefferson quote regarding a theocratic government.

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”

Sweatin' to TBN

Let’s flip on through the channels. Channel surfing is a favorite pastime of mine, but lately it’s become a little dreary. But since I’ve occupied my morning by fixing my coffee maker, I’ll go ahead and get started. Although, television is getting boring. I think I’ll flip over to Youtube.com and see what’s on there. I’ll run a search on the first thing that comes to mind. Ooh, I know, what about “conversion”! Oh, look at that, the TBN YouTube channel is the first thing to come up. I’ll flip through and see what we have here.

Okay, snake handling, miracle baths, and an interview. I’ll check out the interview. Oh, it appears that Steve Borden is interviewing Vince Russo on TBN about his recent conversion to Christianity. If you don’t know, both of these guys were involved in professional wrestling in the late 90s, which was its biggest period for adult marketing. I’m talking an old lady giving birth to her much younger, blacker and bigger boyfriend’s young baby hand. I’m talking Viagra on a pole matches. Vince Russo wrote all of this edgy material and now suddenly he’s a Christian. Russo, a former pro-wrestling/porn writer turned Christian, turned pro-wrestling/porn writer. Steve Borden, known as Sting, obtained commercial success by ripping off the Crow and feeding from the success of a movie which was successful because of its star’s tragic death during its filming. Okay, I’m bored with this. He’s plugging a book. That’s why he converted. NEXT!


Oh, there’s Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachman going on in front of a horde of eager Christian spectators about how the war in Iraq was commanded by God. NEXT!

Oh, there’s Sarah Palin doing the same thing. Except she’s also talking about how man walked with dinosaurs. I thought she didn’t believe in the factual existence of dinosaurs. At least that’s what she said on television shortly after this, during the presidential primaries. Geez, and to think she’s plugging a book now too. NEXT!


As a side note, I’d like to point out how incredible the hair is on everyone at this station. I’d hoped the irony in the statement would be found even without punctuation.


Okay, now Kelly Copeland is telling women to do laundry in the name of God. Okay, now this is not only stupid but sexist too, if you ask me. But she really just asked, “Okay, ladies, if you’re doing laundry, if you’re grouchy about it, are you doing laundry in the love of God? Because when you do laundry in the love of God, you can get a harvest.” I don’t even know what that means in the first place. Harvest? Harvest of what? But how does, exactly, one do laundry in the name of God? Do you only wash your clothes on Sunday? Do you make sure to keep the clothing made by Jews, Hindus and Muslims out of the initial load, and just wash the “Christian” clothing? I’m sorry. Maybe I’m just naïve here, but I just don’t even get what’s going on anymore. NEXT!

I have no idea who this delightful man is, but let me quote what he just said, because my head is still spinning. And I’m sorry if this is poorly punctuated, because I only know how to punctuate English! “Words are things, or they’re word things, so when I say the words I just released a thing, but you don’t see the thing when I say it, you heard the thing before you saw it… because it’s heard before it’s said.” Wow, I’m sorry but I had to leave something out in the middle there, because I couldn’t hear it due to something crazy in my ear.


Mike Murdoch is now on talking about a woman who he met who was obviously just a desperate woman in need of help. What does the grand church of TBN do? Let me quote right from the man’s mouth, “A woman told me that her ex-husband has not paid child support in 15 years. I said, ‘Sow a seed for $58 just as a covenant between you and God. I’m not trying to buy a miracle – that’s absurd. Give God a seed of your faith - $58.’” Wow, so that’s what the church is all about, huh? A woman comes to you in desperation begging for some help because her ex-husband is a dead beat, and you hit her up for money? Yeah, because that’s Christ-like! I just hope her child’s school lunch money was well spent on a nice portion of that huge crystal palace at TBN. Oh, but it’s not done. In this same program he’s quoted in saying, “God talked to me and told me to tell them about the miracle of the $1,000 seed.” You know, for such an all knowing, all seeing and all powerful guy, God sure is pretty shitty when it comes to finances. Geez, the guy’s always broke. NEXT!

Okay, now Benny Hinn is talking to a “fella” who claims to have visited Heaven seven times. That’s pretty astonishing, I certainly must say! Being a person who’s only left this planet twice in my lifetime, I must say that seven visits to another invisible dimension is awfully incredible. Oh, you might be wondering what I’m talking about. In my younger years, I was taken up into a spaceship where I was taught by Martian tribal elders how to forge the Guardian Sword. Then, the second time was less pleasant, as I was, let’s just say, “experimented on”. But before I mention anymore about this, I should let you all know that what I’m talking about are the same exact experiences this man has probably had, should he not be lying. Those experiences are called, in the secular world, DREAMS!!! That’s right, it’s the same brain function that happens during a near death experience, and it happens every night. Your brain is programmed to hallucinate whenever things happen to it – things as normal as shutting down to go to sleep. These hallucinations cause people to see, hear and sometimes even feel things that aren’t really there - things that are just in their head. I talked to Vincent LaGuardia one night for what seemed like three hours, and all he was rambling on about was how the bread in hell was so dry and flakey. But it turned out that this whole experience only lasted about a minute and was part of the Rapid Eye Movement stage of sleeping. It’s the exact same thing and it’s nothing more than hallucinations. But Benny Hinn seems to have triggered some talking points, so I’ll stay with him for a while, okay? NEXT!

Okay, now it’s Benny Hill…I mean, Hinn, refusing to allow doctors into his ministry to inspect people after they’ve been “healed” by his “miracles”. There’s a shocker. NEXT!


Now Benny Hinn is walking around his enormous church shoving people. Oh wait, he’s healing them – my bad. He’s walking up and down the isle ways at the TBN mega-church and pushing over his audience members, calling it faith healing. Geez, talk about a bunch of pushovers. I apologize for that joke, but damn it, I’m leaving it in. NEXT!

Now he’s got a woman up on stage who claims to have been in a wheelchair when arriving at the program that night, from her crippling arthritis she’d had since 1966. He tells her to walk around on stage, lifting her legs high in the air, which to me looks a little bit like the old Nazi march. Then after she comes back around to him, he pushes her over. Her husband, only seconds later, joins Benny onstage to inform him that he watches his “program” every day. The wife shortly joins again, before Benny pushes both of them over by palming their faces. She gets back up and he pushes her over again. Seriously, what the hell is this guy’s problem. I knew a kid in second grade named Cody who used to push people all the time. I ran into him in my teens and kicked his ass. I think someone ought to do that to old Benny, here. But wait, I’m the Smiling Atheist – I can’t say things like that, now can I? But seriously, this guy is the Snake Oil Salesman from Hell.


But we’re talking about a guy who’s been brought up on more charges than that criminal Kent Hovind, or the self-hating homosexual to the left of this paragraph. But that brings up a point: why is it that all of these televangelists are brought up on so many charges? Oh, it’s because they’re frauds. And I don’t know who’s worse. I don’t know if it’s the greedy morons up on the stage, or if it’s their Christian protesters who call them frauds, and then proceed to call them the Anti-Christs spoken about in scripture. Do you not see what is bass-ackward about that? You’re both one in the same. You’re capitalizing on the fear of others to make your own gain.

I just want to put another side note in here that this is the reason that I compare the church with Big Tobacco. Seriously, if you don’t hook them young, you won’t hook them at all. If you tell a child something, he’ll believe it, because that’s what children are conditioned to do. But if you try telling those same stories to a 15 year old, he’ll look at you like you’re crazy. You see, every child is born an atheist, meaning that no child is born with knowledge of religion, therefore, no child believes in God. This is something that is taught to them, and it must be done at an early age. Apparently, the age of seven was too late for me, because that’s when my grandfather started telling biblical stories. And to me, it just sounded like the ramblings of an old man.

You see, I didn’t choose to be an atheist – it came as naturally as my desire to eat. Someone tells me that there’s something there that I can’t see, feel, smell, taste or hear, my response will be, “Okay, do you have any proof of that?” And quite frankly, that should come naturally to everyone, as every child should be taught to question authority. When you’re not taught to question authority and to believe whatever you’re told, things that all Abrahamic religions are adamant about, bad things happen. Do you know that there was a lobby group in Germany in the 30s called Jews for Hitler? There was, and that was a group of people believing what they were told instead of getting the facts themselves and formulating their own opinions. But that’s just something that revolves around good parenting, and good parenting, my diverse, reading friends, is something that’s almost as extinct as the dinosaurs. Just remember, you can’t spell believe without the word LIE. If you have to believe in something, then that something probably isn’t true.

I apologize for this rather somber version of The Smiling Atheist. I hope some of it was funny, but even a smiling atheist can get a little fed up watching stuff like this for an hour straight. And there were so many things that I purposely left out just because I couldn’t find anything funny about them – they were far too absurd, ridiculous, sad and demeaning to the intelligence of everyone watching them.

But since this was a somber blog most of the time, I'm going to end on a high note. I found this comic on a site called www.turnbacktogod.com,and I don't know if they completely missed the point of it, but I don't think it's really to the point of "turning back to God". In fact, I love it.


But anyway, this is The Smiling Atheist signing off, and I hope you smile a lot for me today, because I won’t be doing much of it now. Thanks for reading.