Time to Raise a Stink

Don't be fooled by the title of this blog.  I'm in no way referring to an excess expulsion of methane gas, nor am I referring to a proposed vacation to Washington D.C.  I'm going to do what it seems like everyone else is doing: Offer my illegitimate commentary on the Rebecca Watson matter.  I refer to it as illigitimate because I was not there to witness the actions that took place in the ol' Emerald Isle, nor does my opinion on the matter really...well...matter, at least, no more than anyone else who has weighed in on this topic, from PZ Myers to Richard Dawkins.  Personally, I'd love to live in a world where this type of commentary was unnecessary because it would be second nature to everyone, but we're just not there yet, it would appear.  But to separate myself from the rest, I'm going to do something unusual, or at least not unique to the matter at hand.  I'm going to apply a little logic to this situation and to the events that followed.

For those who do not know the story:

In the early hours of the morning, after a CFI conference, Rebecca Watson was in an elevator with a "gentleman" who felt it would be appropriate to come on to her in the enclosed and cage-like walls of the modern lifting cart.  He came on very strong and merely asked if she'd like to accompany him back to his hotel for...coffee...or something.  I'm sure we all know what "or something" meant, though, again, I wasn't there, so I don't know if those exact words came out of his mouth.  She turned him down, as from what I've heard, nothing happened after that.  She returned to her room, and he returned to his to most likely "or something" himself.

Rebecca posted a video citing the situation, saying this: "Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner."

Now, I don't really see anything wrong with what Rebecca said here.  It didn't come off as extremely feminist, or radically damning of the man she encountered.  It seemed she was being honest and saying it made her feel uncomfortable.  He was creepy.  I can see that.  I would question the use of the word "sexualize," though.  First thing, it's not a real word.  Secondly, being hit on by a man doesn't mean you're being sexualized, but, again, I wasn't there.  I think if he were to walk up to her and start licking her, then she's certainly being reduced to an object, or being objectified, but from what I understand, that's not what happened.  He didn't approach her, take off his clothes and start kissing her shoes or anything creepy like that.  He expressed an obvious interest in spending some time with her in his room.  That is all.

What followed was the disturbing part.  The comments on the blog were extremely radical in nature, running the gambit from claims that many women were afraid to even attend skeptics conventions because, apparently, all skeptic men objectified them and were serial date-rapists.  The comments from the men that followed were even worse.  They ranged from your usual, "Give the guy a break.  You're hot!" to, "You're a woman, and I'll fuck you in the laundry room if I damn well want to."  Now, I'm obviously paraphrasing, but the comments I read weren't that far off.  Since then, if you were to click on any singular Skepchick blog, you'll still see this argument going on between the extremes on both sides.  The extremist feminists claiming that no man has the right to talk to a woman or else it's a rape scene, and the extreme chauvinists who don't seem to see anything wrong with pinching a woman's ass whenever he wants to.  Some comments have been moderate and intermediate, attempting to bring the two sides together with a little bit of logic.  However, others have been anything but.

The following blog was much more disturbing.  After these two extreme groups were screaming at one another through their keyboards, again, the few in the middle being muddled out by the cognitive noise ensuing, Rebecca posted another blog that, instead of quieting the noise and asking people be respectful of one another and not be moronic extremists on one side or the other, she instead decided to fan the flames.  Now, this is just my opinion here, but this blog right here is a great example of how to fan the flames of two opposing sides.

Since then, there has been one more blog from Rebecca herself that seemed to have the same exact aura of flame-fanning - kindling if you will.  Others have weighed in as well, from PZ Myers, who seemingly stood up for Rebecca against the chauvenist side of the argument, and he made good points as well.  You can read them here.  More notably, however, Professor Richard Dawkins included his two cents with this comment:

Dear Muslima

 Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.

Richard

Now, was this comment crass?  Yes, yes it was.  I admit that.  He's a hero of mine, but I can certainly admit it.  I can also say that PZ Myers has a point that we can worry about the plight of Muslim women and also worry about the plight of women in America.  Our brains can handle two things at once (most of us), and the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, in fact, quite to the contrary.  However, there is certainly something to be taken from Richard's comment here, and that is a commentary on modern feminism in America.  Now, this may seem to contradict what I just said about PZ Myers' comment, but it doesn't.  How can something like a woman being hit on in an elevator - not harassed, not objectified as she claims, not sexualized (still not a word), not touched, not groped, not accosted or assaulted, not raped, not murdered, not forced to listen to Justin Bieber albums - when there are women in the third world who are getting stoned for being raped.  I mean, don't you think that would be something better to get men and women fired up about?  Don't you think that next to a concept such as this, getting talked to in an elevator is just a little bit of a waste of space in the blogosphere - I'm guilty of it too, now, I admit.

Let me make an analogous point: I'm a person who fights endlessly for the rights of homosexuals.  Homosexuals certainly do have problems in America, and I write about them.  One blog per issue, and I'm certainly not narcissistic enough to make it about my own experiences, as - crazy me - I guess I feel there's a world outside of my living room that deserves at least an honorable mention.  There are laws in the third world that make homosexuality punishable by death.  There are dictators who will hang you in front of the family you had only to appease your culture, if there were just rumors about you being a homosexual male in their country.  Hell, half of these countries still punish people for witchcraft.  What kind of a selfish prick would I be if I spent a week, a video and three blogs rambling on about how much a friend of mine was bothered because a possible homophobe (though no evidence to say he is) made a slight gesture at him that he took as homophobic (though no evidence to say it was)?

My last point is my most important.  What does this do for anybody?  What does it do for anyone to ramble on with this self-entitlement ideology, which is today's feminism - not to be confused with real feminism, which at one time was about equality, fairness, civil liberties and equal rights.  Today's feminism is hardly different from the extreme on the other side.  They both make wild claims and accusations, both against the opposite sex, and about their own entitlement.  One side: A man should be able to rape and accost any woman he wants.  Other side: A man shouldn't even have the right to speak to a woman that he finds attractive, or else it's a hostile environment and the man is a would-be rapist.  WHERE DOES THIS GET US? 

How is this extreme ideology on either side any different from extreme religious ideologies.  They both take hold through the human ego, they both stem from a sense of entitlement, and they both hold dire consequences for our species.  Should a woman be afraid to leave her home for fear of being raped?  Absolutely not.  In fact, I don't think rape laws are harsh enough in this country.  However, should men be afraid of talking to women for fear of having their name or face plastered all over the internet, with words like "creepy" and "rapist" tagged all over the post?  Absolutely not.  Look, I totally agree that the guy probably should have had more respect and more tact, and maybe asked her if she'd like a cup of coffee in the lobby so they could talk more.  Maybe he should have chosen a better setting than an elevator, which has become a modern day rape haven for people.  He could have done a lot of things.  He could have also chosen not to speak to any women at all and just gone back to his room.  We could have all done that at one time or another.  I could have done that 3 years ago when I met my fiancee.  But I didn't.  Does that make me creepy?  Does that make me a potential sex offender or a rapist?  Does that make me a molester of space or a or a diligent master of masculine manipulation "lookin' fer a woman to take ma seed and make ma dinner?"  I'm sure that by now you're seeing the ridiculousness in all of this.

Let's get over the things that divide us, shall we?  Some men are asses - most aren't.  Some women are bitches - most aren't.  Making generalizations to the contrary is doing nothing for us as a society.  Neither is taking extreme positions on one side or the other.  Most of us want peace, equality, men and women to be able to do the same jobs for the same pay and the same opportunities for advancement.  Most of us don't want men or women to be held up on pedestals as the superior sex, because there's no such thing.  For all of the faults that one side has against the other, there is a strength to replace it.  It's the positive and negative energy paradigm.  And without the right amounts of protons and electrons, we're fucked.  Without unity between us, we're fucked.  I think it's time we see that.  And for those who feel that there shouldn't be equal treatment on both sides of the spectrum, well, then move to the third world where you'll feel at home, or move to Amazonia where you'll feel at home. 

Nobody wants you to "be a good girl and shut up," Rebecca, but if you could quit fanning the flames of hatred and self-entitlement ideology, the rest of us, men and women alike, would surely appreciate it.  It's not as much your own words as those in the comments on your blog, but you're doing nothing to diminish it, and you're making it worse by carrying this on and being continuously insulting to the other sex.  You're doing nothing for the skeptical movement but painting us all to be a bunch of misogynists, and you're only reinforcing many of our views on modern day feminism and how it's become nothing more than another hate movement with entitlement delusions.  Just stop, okay?  You weren't attacked, so quit acting like you were.

The Long-Awaited Return of Fun with Fundies!

WHO'S READY FOR SOME CRAZY?

It's been a while since I've done one of these here blogs, but I felt the time was right.  Why, you ask?  Well, just hold onto your britches and let me 'splain.  His name is Bryan Fischer and he's a member of the Minnesota Family Council.  If it were up to me, I'd really love to delete the first word of that title...as well as the second and third, but I digress.

Bryan, an outspoken critic of DADT and supporter of DOMA, had this to say:

Get ready for an entire spate of hate crimes in the U.S. military, perpetrated by homosexual activists against servicemembers, especially officers, who have deeply held religious convictions about the acceptability of homosexual behavior.  I received a communique from a career United States Air Force officer, a man who has been an officer for 19 years. He understandably wants his identity to be protected so that he can finish his military career without himself becoming the victim of a hate crime perpetrated by homosexuals.

A 19-year Air Force officer wants his identity hidden because he's afraid of the big, bad gays.  How interesting.  Let us continue:

Says this experienced officer, based on the training he was just recently subjected to:
“Homosexuals are now a protected class of people in the Air Force. Any form of discrimination against them — even an objection to the sexual lifestyle or behavior — is now taboo and will be severely punished.”
Severe punishment for merely expressing reservations about the normalcy of homosexual behavior? Can you say “hate crime?” I certainly can.

Okay, so I'm having a hard time figuring out how one would be perpetrating a hate crime on another by merely objecting to a person's bigoted views.  If a person comes up to me and says, "I don't like the fact that you're an atheist."  I respond in saying, "Well, it's really none of your damn business."  Suddenly, I've perpetrated a hate crime?  I think not.  And on another note, isn't it interesting how these conservative ass-clowns hate hate crime legislation until they suddenly feel victimized?  Oh, but we're not stopping there.  There's more, fellow heathens!

The officer who wrote to me went on to explain that there was “absolutely no discussion about the right of personnel to be free from unwanted sexual attraction…the guy who asks me out on a date Monday afternoon will be granted the right to shower with me on Tuesday morning…While there is currently some leeway for heterosexuals to object to intimate quarters with homosexuals…senior leaders in the room made it clear that such objections will not be tolerated for long.”

I'm not going to comment on that last part and just assume that you know why that's stupid.  In the end, this is a pretty amazing piece right here.  Amazing in the sense that it made me laugh harder than The Invention of Lying and Kick Ass combined.  In the end, congratulations, Bryan Fischer and Bryan Fischer's imaginary army friend.  You are (both?) indeed

BAT

SHIT

CRAZY!

Another Christian Trying Their Hands at Science: FAIL!

I want to start this blog out with a disclaimer: This piece may be satire. Most likely, it was intended to be satire, as there is no way anyone could be this stupid, however, it was picked up by a Christian website (non-satire site) and is being used now as if anything on it were accurate or scientifically correct. I’m just going to break this down one by one.

The first part that I want to point out is that I see nothing in this image that has anything to do with atheism. Atheism is the non-belief in deities. That is it. Nothing more. What you’re talking about (14.5 billion-year-old earth; evolution; 3.7 billion years of life on earth) is science. So, in other words, you’re trying to use science to argue science, not atheism. The fact that most atheists accept scientific facts has nothing to do with atheism itself, as most Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, Buddhists, and Jews also have no problem accepting reality over Bronze Age myths written by people who sacrificed cattle to appease the sun. That being said, let’s get to the scientific breakdown of this enormously hilarious piece of crap.

Fallacy no.1: This piece claims that the total amount of water on earth is approximately 1.386X10^21 liters when the actual number, not that facts ever seem to matter to these people, is 3.26X10^20 gallons, putting the number at around 1.26X10^21 liters.

Fallacy no. 2: According to the most recent studies, the total estimated population of the Earth is 6.8 billion as of 2010. Therefore, I don’t see how you’re rounding when you’re getting that six-billion number. It might be time to step out of 2000, when that number might have been viable; which, in turn, leads us to Fallacy no. 3.

Fallacy no. 3: I wish I had the writer of this piece in front of me so that I could ask him exactly how he thinks breeding works. He/she apparently thinks we’re asexual. This whole thing relies on the assumption that population never grows. You see, population grows exponentially. For instance, while there are about seven-billion people on (not in) the world right now, in 1980, there were 4.4 billion. In 1950, the world’s population was an estimated 2.4 billion. In 1900, the world’s population was around 1.6 billion. Do you see what I’m getting at? In other words, we are not asexual beings where each person will have one child, and the population totals are what they always were and always will be. I guess Christians don’t understand breeding or exponential growth. In fact, just to drive the point home, the estimated world’s population in 2050 will be 9.85 billion.

Fallacy no. 4: Dysentery! About 97% of the world’s water is undrinkable because it rests in the world’s ocean. Ocean water is salt water and is undrinkable to humans, as salt is a diuretic and would dehydrate us. There are about 326 million cubic miles of fresh water on the planet earth, which would be enough to fill the United States with a lake ranging from about 143-145 kilometers miles deep. Of this, about 70% of the Earth’s fresh water is locked up in the polar icecaps, a number that varies from year to year, as the icecaps are quickly melting. Also, less than 1% of the world’s fresh water is accessible to humans, which is why 1/3 of the world’s population lives in water-stressed countries. There are actually about 5.274X10^15 liters of fresh water on earth.

Simple equation: If the average person needs to drink about two liters of water per day, that would bring the number to about 13.6 billion liters of water per day that is consumed in the world; discounting leaky water faucets, bathing, and the amount of water present in natural and man-made objects such as water towers, vegetables and so on. So, if we’re drinking 13.6 billion liters of water per day and there is 5.27X10^15 liters of water available, then we should be completely without fresh water within 387,500 days or roughly 1,062 years. In other words, according to the equation proposed by the nice gentlemen/woman who made this nice image, mankind should have only been able to last a little over a century on the planet earth. So, even his/her bible is wrong in saying the earth is 6,000 years old, as we would have all died of dehydration after the first thousand years, long before Jebus even had a chance to become a zombie in the first place.

How is this possible, then, that mankind has survived for 250,000 years on the planet earth? Well, refer back to what I spoke about earlier in regards to breeding and timeline. There weren’t always so many of us, in fact, throughout most of the period of our stay on earth, there have been very few of us by comparison to our world’s current population. At the dawn of farming, the agricultural revolution, it is believed that only about five-million humans populated the earth. At this point, there would be enough fresh water to sustain all of the humans on earth for almost 3 million years. Funny how quickly our population’s growth has shortened our feasible fresh water supply, isn’t it?

I would go into how water replenishes itself, but I believe with the fallacies of this piece, it’s completely moot. Especially because, Crazy Christian Person, you’ve actually managed to inadvertently make a point that ecological scientists have been making for generations now: There is not enough fresh water on the earth to sustain our population. We, as mankind, need to start limiting our bathing, fixing our leaky faucets, stop running water needlessly while doing dishes or brushing our teeth, and so on. So, in other words, while trying to prove science wrong with science, you managed to prove science right, though, with pretty bad science that I’ve simply corrected for you. You’ve also proven another point: People with no scientific backgrounds shouldn’t try to discuss science, as you only make an ass out of yourselves. This was actually dumber than the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument, which in itself, completely ignores that said second law only refers to closed/isolated systems, which the earth is not.

Smiling Atheist out, and don’t forget to follow, subscribe, or do whatever it is that you people do. Also, don’t forget that my book, Crusade: The Unchecked and Unbalanced Role of Faith in America is available on Amazon.com for $19.99, and also available on all Nook formats, including free Nook applications for PC, iPhone, iPad, Android, and others, for the low price of $5.99.

Abraham Lincoln: Religion Hunter

So, the Tea and Republican parties are suddenly up in arms over the recently revealed Lincoln Letters that reveal that Abraham Lincoln was, indeed, an atheist. You know, The Smiling Atheist is just going to come right out and say it: No shit, Sherlock! Do you right-wing nutcases not have access to history books? Or do you merely not have the capabilities to read them? Darwin knows you read enough Ayn Rand. Another atheist, by the way, however, not one I’m thrilled to call one of my own.

The fact of the matter is that Lincoln was well known to have been an atheist. It was actually one of the biggest trump cards pulled out by his opponent during his campaign to become president. He was accused of being an atheist at just about every turn, and never actually denied it either. His responses were usually within the confines of quoting the No Religious Test Clause or the Separation Clause of the Constitution, or rambling on some speech about a person’s relationship with god being a personal matter, not for the public eye. If you’ll notice, actually, during the Civil War, the most often utilized justification for keeping slaves were the biblical verses Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:2-6, both of which condone slavery, while it is not condemned anywhere in the Old or New Testaments. This argument, Lincoln completely ignored in leading his crusade to end slavery and to amass the constitutional power of the centralized federal government. Also, look closely at the presidential history and its religious affiliation section. Lincoln admittedly claims no religious affiliation.

I have to ask at this point, just what is the problem? Why do you suddenly look upon the man who essentially started the civil rights movement in a different light because he didn’t believe in the same invisible man in the sky that you seem to? How is he a different person? As a matter of fact, I would have thought modern day republicans to detest Lincoln in the first place. He started a war (something you would like) over civil liberties (something you clearly don’t like). He limited states’ rights to the articles and amendments within the federal Constitution. He drank and womanized. He wore a top-hat. He enjoyed the theater (possibly a downfall in the end, but I digress).

Is it because you don’t want to admit that a hero of American history could have been a godless heathen? You know, like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and plenty other non-theistic individuals who paved the way for the country you’re now trying to destroy?
Let me run down a list of Lincoln’s quotes regarding organized religion:

“The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.”

“The only person who is a worse liar than a faith healer is his patient.”

“If there is no military need for the building, leave it alone, neither putting anyone in or out of it, except on finding some one preaching or practicing treason, in which case lay hands on him, just as if he were doing the same thing in any other building.”
-- Abraham Lincoln, order relating to a church in Memphis, Tennessee, issued on May 13, 1864, Nicolay and Hay, Works of Abraham Lincoln, chapter on "Lincoln and the Churches," quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 143. In the same chapter Nicolay and Hay state that in order to prevent treasonable preaching, Secretary Stanton appointed Bishop Ames, of the Methodist Church, to be supervisor of all the Churches in a certain southern district. President Lincoln at once countermanded the order.

“It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to Infidelity.”
-- Abraham Lincoln, Manford's Magazine, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 144

Whatever your justifications, to look upon another in a different light knowing suddenly that he lacked a belief that you personally, in your opinion, feel is important, is nothing more than bigotry. Do I, as a science nerd, look upon Sir Isaac Newton in a different light knowing he was also a theologian? Absolutely not. The man still invented calculus and discovered the principles of gravity (his original thesis was mostly right anyway, though he could hardly realize the gravity of what he had discovered – no pun intended). Abraham Lincoln accomplished within his short presidency, more positive influence and outcome than any president before or after him. He was a hero to whom millions of African Americans owe their freedom, and most likely plenty of peoples of other races and nationalities who entered this country after the time of the Civil War. His words were that of poetry, and those words inspired a majority of our country to realize its foundation and legacy as the world’s first great secular and free nation. A legacy that has since been tarnished, I might add, on both accounts.

In the end, yes, a godless heathen ended slavery in America. In fact, he did so much more. A bill President Lincoln signed into law chartered the first transcontinental railroad. He signed into law the Homestead Act and the National Banking Act. And before he was assassinated, he chartered and supported the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which gave full freedom and liberties to African Americans previously shackled by the chains of slavery. Put that in your smoke and pipe it; na-na na-na boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo. Smiling Atheist out, and don’t forget to follow and subscribe.  And remember that Crusade: The Unchecked and Unbalanced Role of Faith in America by yours truly is available on Amazon.com for $19.99 and in eBook format for all nook applications, including the free ones such as nook for PC, on barnesandnoble.com for $5.99.

To Japan from Americans God Damn Christian Population.

The following note is regarding the types of tweets and posts that I've been seeing all day today and all day yesterday. From any and all atheist, agnostics, irreligious, or just plainly secular people I know, it's been a field of "Sending our good thoughts to Japan," followed by links or text numbers where you can donate to aid in humanitarian efforts. From the other side, however, while I've seen a few of the religious people I know actually posting some positive messages (excluded is the copy/paste status going around telling people to send a WAVE of prayers toward the Japanese - really tasteful, Christians), the vast majority of it has been posts like the following from Twitter:
@DOC914‎: Japan gave us pokemon, God gave them an earthquake/tsunami one-two ... you do the math.

@Evd23rocker:‎ Why this earthquake happened in Japan? I don't think God did it I believe Satan did it.

@Ninja_Beanz‎: Dont ask God for help Japan, ask him to please stop killing ur people. He CREATED the earthquake and the tsunami

@Traceybickle:‎ The earth needs the mercy of God. Cry out all who will and He will relent. #Japan's #earthquake

@EspoOriginals:‎ Maybe the Mayans were right.... #2012 #Earthquakes #Japan #Haiti

@Catcasco‎: All I'm going to say is this: if God gave one tiny dog's scrotum about Japan he wouldn't have hit them with the earthquake/tsunami combo.

@PoetSam17:‎ Man has never been good at reading signs, Just ignoring them. Earthquake in Japan, let's acknowledge God's signs. Turn to HIM and pray.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAGYqrANnAw
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/27876648/could-the-japan-earthquake-be-gods-punish-for-them-killing-whales?page=0
@Tinasongbird73‎: Prayers up 4 the people in japan who've experience great loss & heartache frm the earthquakes & Tsunami. God is trying 2tell us something!

Yet to weigh in is the infallible Pat Robertson himself, but it seems like his zombie followers are beating him to the punch these days. Really, people. Anyone I see saying anything about GOD being involved or that God is telling us something or sending us a message, is going to get beaten about the head severely with a book on plate tectonics.

Smiling Atheist OUT!

Why are Atheists so Vocal?

What are atheists so vocal? This is a question I'm often asked, and it's a legitimate question at that. Quite frankly, the answer is pretty clear cut to us, but for many, I can see why it would need to be put into a more personal perspective. Luckily for you, I'm pretty good at doing that in rather entertaining ways in order to get my point across, so I think it's time to flex my metaphor muscle and DO THIS THING!

First, let's ask a question of ourselves, "What sounds absurd to us?" Well, as an atheist, there are quite a few things that sound absurd to me: ghosts, homeopathy, angels, demons, religion in general, and so on... But what sounds absurd to you? I recently took a poll on a facebook page that I run anonymously; to see what most religious people think is absurd in our world. I asked about things like ghosts, homeopathy, chiropractic medicine (it's amazing how many people think chiropractors are legitimate doctors), UFO abduction, vampires, werewolves, zombies, and so on... Leaving out the fact that many Christians said zombie and vampires sound most absurd to them, even though both of which are in the bible, the most claimed absurd idea in the poll was alien abduction. Therefore, I'm going to use that. How, you ask? Well, keep reading, nitz!

Let's say for a moment that the alien abduction scene started to catch fire. It sort of did back in the 90's with the X-Files and all, but certainly not to the degree needed for this metaphor. Let's say that it really started to catch on, this absurd idea that intelligent alien life forms with the technology to travel twenty billion light years, utilized this technology just to hover over a quiet corn field for an hour, then shoot a beam of light into the farmhouse, pulling yokel farmer X into the ship with the hopes of sticking a large tube into yokel farm X's ass, and then leaving. Not stopping by the White House to have a chat with President Obama, or dropping in the middle of the Super Bowl to let us know they're hear, just sticking a tube up a hillbilly's ass will suffice.

Now, let's say that idea really started catching on. Let's say that the next thing you know, about 50% of the country started to firmly believe this was actually happening despite a clear lack of empirical evidence, and, in fact, plenty of empirical evidence to the contrary. You're probably going to start wondering, "What's going on here?" Though, you're concerned, it's really not any of your business, so you move on with your life.

Next thing you know, 80% of the country firmly believes in these random abductions. It's everywhere. It's starting to show up on billboards and in magazines. You can't look in one direction without being reminded just how stupid the rest of the populace really is. Still, it's a perfectly harmless belief, thus, you move on with your life. It's not affecting you, right?

Next thing you know, these believers start to build giant buildings in dedication to this absurd belief. Not just that, but while you were sleeping, references to random alien abductions became a part of your national motto and is now printed on your money, "In Aliens and Farmer Sugar-Snoogle-Billy-Bob-Joe-Jack we Trust!" Now you're becoming just a little more alarmed, aren't you? Well, not as alarmed as you'll be once you realize that the Pledge of Allegiance has been changed to include references to aliens and Farmer Joe-Jack. That's right. While your children are still half asleep, with their brains hardly functioning (the perfect time for hypnosis), they're being forced to pledge an undying allegiance to a country, as well as to the aliens who show up every night and sodomize the old farmer. Now, you're getting mad.

Only weeks later, you notice it's gone farther. In fact, not a single person elected in the last cycle was so without claiming some sort of belief in these aliens and in Farmer Joe-Jacks chosen anus. Not just that, but these politicians are starting to pass legislation based on these beliefs. Legislation about the our possible affects on our planet, no matter how scientifically backed-up they are, are being shot down because senators are reading from the book of the Alien and Farmer Joe-Jack as their counter to the legislation. And it actually worked! More legislation is being passed, and it's becoming more and more harmful, not just to the planet, but also to human rights and civil liberties. Your rights are being stripped away while your president stands in front of the country and says, "Well, no. I don't consider the non-alien people to be patriots. I don't even consider them to be citizens. This is one nation under Aliens and Farmer Butts."

The next week, your child comes home and says that science class has changed. He's no longer being taught facts and evidence, but instead, they've introduced the Alien and Farmer Butt creation story, which has no evidence to back it up whatsoever, into the biology classroom, and booted out the theory of evolution. Your child is no longer being taught science or math or any other hard or soft science, but instead, they're learning from this ridiculous book that's so absurd, you think anyone who believes it should be locked away in a psych ward.

What's worse than that? Well, I'll tell you. Suddenly, you've just found out that your kind, those who don't believe in the absurd alien story, are the least trusted minority in the United States, scoring underneath illegal immigrants, Muslims, Homosexuals, Mexicans and so on... Well, people think you can't possibly have a moral compass without believing in the alien story, so you must be a bad person. You probably want to convert all of their young to your hetaeristic ways.

Next thing you know, two towers fall in New York because the alien people have branched into separate tribes and want to kill one another, as well as you - mostly you! Abortion clinics are being bombed, abortion doctors are being shot right in the middle of alien church, and atheists of the alien stories are being shot, mugged and beheaded just for writing stories that are critical of the alien stories. Women and children are being stoned in town squares for disobeying the rules of the alien doctrine. Innocent people who want nothing more than to believe in something greater than them are being taken advantage of by televangelists of the alien doctrine. They're shelling all of their money out to polyester-clad men just so that they can get into alien heaven. Militias are forming all over the place to counter the alien Armageddon they believe is coming, while governments wage wars on countries and kill innocent people just to make the prophecies come true.  Uneducated, misspelled and grammatically incorrect hyperbole is everywhere with new, radical political parties based solely on these ideas.  Thousands die everyday based on the alien doctrine. All for one stupid little idea that a dumb redneck had who wanted to be in the newspaper.

Gee, can you imagine why we'd want to be a little vocal from time to time?

This has been your Smiling Atheist, C. Allen Thompson, with another edition of the blog that all but guarantees me a special slot in hell should I be wrong.  And don't forget to click the link below.  Crusade: The Unchecked and Unbalanced Role of Faith in America makes a great V-Day gift for that special godless someone in your life.

MEMORIAL

Today, none of the usual snark will occur on the Smiling Atheist blog.  Today we remember a great man - possibly one of the greatest men to have ever lived.  On January 24, 1965, the world lost a great writer, statesman and politician by the name of Sir Winston Churchill.  Aside from his impeccable wit, he is, and forever will be, known as the voice of a generation in the United Kingdom during one of the darkest times in recent history.  Winston Churchill was not only a two-time British Prime Minister, but was also a Nobel Prize winner in literature. 

During the 1930's, Churchill was one of the first voices with the courage to warn not only his country, but the rest of the world, of the impending doom of Hitler's German regime.  And to this date, he is known as the man who was Hitler's worst enemy.  Adolf Hitler's regime came to rise primarily because of his gift of communication and manipulation.  Churchill, however, was his better, in both matters.  Churchill was the orator that the western world needed to combat Hitler's regime and add fodder to the cannons that stood against the Third Reich.  And while Hitler himself stated, "The best way to sell a big lie is with a small truth," Churchill himself sold the truth to the world with nothing more than wit and determination.

I am not half the writer that Churchill was, so I feel the best way to remember him is to share some of his words with you.  So, in tribute, here is Sir Winston Churchill:

16 October 1938

I avail myself with relief of the opportunity of speaking to the people of the United States. I do not know how long such liberties will be allowed. The stations of uncensored expression are closing down; the lights are going out; but there is still time for those to whom freedom and parliamentary government mean something, to consult together. Let me, then, speak in truth and earnestness while time remains.


The American people have, it seems to me, formed a true judgment upon the disaster which has befallen Europe. They realise, perhaps more clearly than the French and British publics have yet done, the far-reaching consequences of the abandonment and ruin of the Czechoslovak Republic. I hold to the conviction I expressed some months ago, that if in April, May or June, Great Britain, France, and Russia had jointly declared that they would act together upon Nazi Germany if Herr Hitler committed an act of unprovoked aggression against this small State, and if they had told Poland, Yugoslavia, and Rumania what they meant to do in good time, and invited them to join the combination of peace-defending Powers, I hold that the German Dictator would have been confronted with such a formidable array that he would have been deterred from his purpose. This would also have been an opportunity for all the peace-loving and moderate forces in Germany, together with the chiefs of the German Army, to make a great effort to re-establish something like sane and civilised conditions in their own country. If the risks of war which were run by France and Britain at the last moment had been boldly faced in good time, and plain declarations made, and meant, how different would our prospects be today!


But all these backward speculations belong to history. It is no good using hard words among friends about the past, and reproaching one another for what cannot be recalled. It is the future, not the past, that demands our earnest and anxious thought. We must recognize that the Parliamentary democracies and liberal, peaceful forces have everywhere sustained a defeat which leaves them weaker, morally and physically, to cope with dangers which have vastly grown. But the cause of freedom has in it a recuperative power and virtue which can draw from misfortune new hope and new strength. If ever there was a time when men and women who cherish the ideals of the founders of the British and American Constitutions should take earnest counsel with one another, that time is now.


All the world wishes for peace and security. Have we gained it by the sacrifice of the Czechoslovak Republic. Here was the model democratic State of Central Europe, a country where minorities were treated better than anywhere else. It has been deserted, destroyed and devoured. It is now being digested. The question which is of interest to a lot of ordinary people, common people, is whether this destruction of the Czechoslovak Republic will bring upon the world a blessing or a curse.


We must all hope it will bring a blessing; that after we have averted our gaze for a while from the process of subjugation and liquidation, everyone will breathe more freely; that a load will be taken off our chests; we shall be able to say to ourselves: "Well, that's out of the way, anyhow. Now let's get on with our regular daily life." But are these hopes well founded or are we merely making the best of what we had not the force and virtue to stop? That is the question that the English-speaking peoples in all their lands must ask themselves today. Is this the end, or is there more to come?


There is another question which arises out of this. Can peace, goodwill, and confidence be built upon submission to wrong-doing backed by force?


One may put this question in the largest form. Has any benefit or progress ever been achieved by the human race by submission to organised and calculated violence? As we look back over the long story of the nations we must see that, on the contrary, their glory has been founded upon the spirit of resistance to tyranny and injustice, especially when these evils seemed to be backed by heavier force. Since the dawn of the Christian era a certain way of life has slowly been shaping itself among the Western peoples, and certain standards of conduct and government have come to be esteemed. After many miseries and prolonged confusion, there arose into the broad light of day the conception of the right of the individual; his right to be consulted in the government of his country; his right to invoke the law even against the State itself. Independent Courts of Justice were created to affirm and inforce this hard-won custom. Thus was assured throughout the English-speaking world, and in France by the stern lessons of the Revolution, what Kipling called, "Leave to live by no man's leave underneath the law." Now in this resides all that makes existence precious to man, and all that confers honour and health upon the State.


We are confronted with another theme. It is not a new theme; it leaps out upon us from the Dark Ages - racial persecution, religious intolerance, deprivation of free speech, the conception of the citizen as a mere soulless fraction of the State. To this has been added the cult of war. Children are to be taught in their earliest schooling the delights and profits of conquest and aggression. A whole mighty community has been drawn painfully, by severe privations, into a warlike frame. They are held in this condition, which they relish no more than we do, by a party organisation, several millions strong, who derive all kinds of profits, good and bad, from the upkeep of the regime. Like the Communists, the Nazis tolerate no opinion but their own. Like the Communists, they feed on hatred. Like the Communists, they must seek, from time to time, and always at shorter intervals, a new target, a new prize, a new victim. The Dictator, in all his pride, is held in the grip of his Party machine. He can go forward; he cannot go back. He must blood his hounds and show them sport, or else, like Actaeon of old, be devoured by them. All-strong without, he is all-weak within. As Byron wrote a hundred years ago: "These Pagod things of Sabre sway, with fronts of brass and feet of clay."


No one must, however, underrate the power and efficiency of a totalitarian state. Where the whole population of a great country, amiable, good-hearted, peace-loving people are gripped by the neck and by the hair by a Communist or a Nazi tyranny - for they are the same things spelt in different ways - the rulers for the time being can exercise a power for the purposes of war and external domination before which the ordinary free parliamentary societies are at a grievous practical disadvantage. We have to recognise this. And then, on top of all, comes this wonderful mastery of the air which our century has discovered, but of which, alas, mankind has so far shown itself unworthy. Here is this air power with its claim to torture and terrorise the women and children, the civil population of neighbouring countries.


This combination of medieval passion, a party caucus, the weapons of modern science, and the blackmailing power of air-bombing, is the most monstrous menace to peace, order and fertile progress that has appeared in the world since the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century.


The culminating question to which I have been leading is whether the world as we have known it - the great and hopeful world of before the war, the world of increasing hope and enjoyment for the common man, the world of honoured tradition and expanding science - should meet this menace by submission or by resistance. Let us see, then, whether the means of resistance remain to us today. We have sustained an immense disaster; the renown of France is dimmed. In spite of her brave, efficient army, her influence is profoundly diminished. No one has a right to say that Britain, for all her blundering, has broken her word - indeed, when it was too late, she was better than her word. Nevertheless, Europe lies at this moment abashed and distracted before the triumphant assertions of dictatorial power. In the Spanish Peninsula, a purely Spanish quarrel has been carried by the intervention, or shall I say the "non-intervention" (to quote the current Jargon) of Dictators into the region of a world cause.


But it is not only in Europe that these oppressions prevail. China is being torn to pieces by a military clique in Japan; the poor, tormented Chinese people there are making a brave and stubborn defence. The ancient empire of Ethiopia has been overrun. The Ethiopians were taught to look to the sanctity of public law, to the tribunal of many nations gathered in majestic union. But all failed; they were deceived, and now they are winning back their right to live by beginning again from the bottom a struggle on primordial lines. Even in South America, the Nazi regime begins to undermine the fabric of Brazilian society.


Far away, happily protected by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, you, the people of the United States, to whom I now have the chance to speak, are the spectators, and I may add the increasingly involved spectators of these tragedies and crimes. We are left in no doubt where American conviction and sympathies lie; but will you wait until British freedom and independence have succumbed, and then take up the cause when it is three-quarters ruined, yourselves alone? I hear that they are saying in the United States that because England and France have failed to do their duty therefore the American people can wash their hands of the whole business. This may be the passing mood of many people, but there is no sense in it. If things have got much worse, all the more must we try to cope with them.


For, after all, survey the remaining forces of civilisation; they are overwhelming. If only they were united in a common conception of right and duty, there would be no war. On the contrary, the German people, industrious, faithful, valiant, but alas! lacking in the proper spirit of civic independence, liberated from their present nightmare, would take their honoured place in the vanguard of human society. Alexander the Great remarked that the people of Asia were slaves because they had not learned to pronounce the word "No." Let that not be the epitaph of the English-speaking peoples or of Parliamentary democracy, or of France, or of the many surviving liberal States of Europe.


There, in one single word, is the resolve which the forces of freedom and progress, of tolerance and good will, should take. It is not in the power of one nation, however formidably armed, still less is it in the power of a small group of men, violent, ruthless men, who have always to cast their eyes back over their shoulders, to cramp and fetter the forward march of human destiny. The preponderant world forces are upon our side; they have but to be combined to be obeyed. We must arm. Britain must arm. America must arm. If, through an earnest desire for peace, we have placed ourselves at a disadvantage, we must make up for it by redoubled exertions, and, if necessary, by fortitude in suffering.


We shall, no doubt, arm. Britain, casting away the habits of centuries, will decree national service upon her citizens. The British people will stand erect, and will face whatever may be coming.


But arms - instrumentalities, as President Wilson called them - are not sufficient by themselves. We must add to them the power of ideas. People say we ought not to allow ourselves to be drawn into a theoretical antagonism between Nazidom and democracy; but the antagonism is here now. It is this very conflict of spiritual and moral ideas which gives the free countries a great part of their strength. You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. On all sides they are guarded by masses of armed men, cannons, aeroplanes, fortifications, and the like - they boast and vaunt themselves before the world, yet in their hearts there is unspoken fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts; words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home - all the more powerful because forbidden - terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic. They make frantic efforts to bar our thoughts and words; they are afraid of the workings of the human mind. Cannons, airplanes, they can manufacture in large quantities; but how are they to quell the natural promptings of human nature, which after all these centuries of trial and progress has inherited a whole armoury of potent and indestructible knowledge?


Dictatorship - the fetish worship of one man - is a passing phase. A state of society where men may not speak their minds, where children denounce their parents to the police, where a business man or small shopkeeper ruins his competitor by telling tales about his private opinions; such a state of society cannot long endure if brought into contact with the healthy outside world. The light of civilised progress with its tolerances and co-operation, with its dignities and joys, has often in the past been blotted out. But I hold the belief that we have now at last got far enough ahead of barbarism to control it, and to avert it, if only we realise what is afoot and make up our minds in time. We shall do it in the end. But how much harder our toil for every day's delay!


Is this a call to war? Does anyone pretend that preparation for resistance to aggression is unleashing war? I declare it to be the sole guarantee of peace. We need the swift gathering of forces to confront not only military but moral aggression; the resolute and sober acceptance of their duty by the English-speaking peoples and by all the nations, great and small, who wish to walk with them. Their faithful and zealous comradeship would almost between night and morning clear the path of progress and banish from all our lives the fear which already darkens the sunlight to hundreds of millions of men.