Gingerthals

So it turns out Neanderthals were pale, freckled redheads with O blood, had a gift for gab and a fondness for bone marrow. Oh boy, like Mrs. Chief needed more ammunition to bust my balls.

This information is a result of new discoveries recently in Spain reported in the Telegraph, but it's not entirely new info. Previous studies have shown there were ginger Neanderthals, too. Unfortunately, I think the reporter for the Telegraph made an error, at least I hope it was his error. See if anything here sets off an alarm for you:

The report, published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, concludes that: "These results suggest the genetic change responsible for the O blood group in humans predates the human and Neanderthal divergence" but came "after humans separated from their common ancestor ... chimpanzees."

I'd like to read what was replaced with "...", wouldn't you? Any guesses what that was? Perhaps "they share with", or "which is also the ancestor of". Now it's possible human and chimp ancestors got it on, but humans didn't come from chimps, and that's something that commonly gets confused by people ignorant of evolution, like for instance every Creationist.


Anyway, I do find it amusing that Neanderthals were gingers, or should we now call them "Gingerthals"? The study suggests the ginger traits manifested before the human and neanderthal splits in the branch, but what if they didn't? Maybe it was that ginger prejudice we still see today that drove early humans to dispatch the Gingerthals and ginger traits manifested independently in humans, or perhaps our ancestors couldn't resist those ginger girls and, well, that's how we got the magical MC1R ginger gene. ;)

Green doesn't equal good

If the Bible can be used for good, what's the harm? This question comes up a lot in various forms, but the essential argument is if religious belief produces a good, then it's good (or at least not so bad). This is typical ends justify the means belief. Of course it's rarely as cut and dry as saying battering your wife is ok if it gets her to keep the house clean. No, it's usually something like belief in an afterlife is ok because it cheers people up when their loved ones die or belief in a "higher power" is good because it got you off drugs or booze. Where's the harm?

I could easily write a post about why both of those aren't good, but in short, belief in an afterlife may make you feel good but it actually prevents you from facing and really dealing with someone's death. You're simply pretending the end wasn't the end, and the problem compounds with the extra baggage of the rest of the particular religious beliefs. Same is true for programs like AA, where rather than having you face your addiction and strengthen your will and your self-reliance, it instead tells you you're powerless and completely incapable of facing your problems without the help of some magical "higher power", and then it's only natural to carry that self-deprecating dependency to every other problem you might face.

Alright, so I'm rushing because what I really want to get to is this, the new "Green Bible". Yes, a bible has been made to sell Christians on environmentalism. Unfortunately I don't have access to this charming doorstop, but it seems in it you'll find highlighted verses that refer to "God's creation" in an effort to inspire Christian stewardship of the Earth. This is something put forth by something called "Creation Care" (which some of you may have heard of before on this podcast). So if the Green Bible and Creation Care gets people to save and protect the environment, what's the harm?

First, again, we're talking about requiring a lot of excess baggage here, or what McCain would call "pork". Do we really need to buy into all that Christian nonsense just to accept that we should be more eco-friendly? Second, why should saving the Earth only be worth it because a god created it AND now you can point to verses in your holy book which imply you should take care of it? How about taking care of it because it's all we currently have? How about negative health effects and shortages of resources? Hell, even if you're a rich, selfish prick, you should see the practical benefits of renewable energy meaning you could then pay less to fuel your toys, or even make some coin off of the Green movement. The point is there are many real and rationally arrived at reasons for being more eco-friendly. Creating a new Bible to sway Christians (and perhaps non-Christians, too) seems superfluous, ridiculous, ultimately causing harm as well as good, and just another example of ends justify the means belief.

Now don't get me wrong, this Creation Care stuff is better than say the Christians who feel that because their god created everything, man can't possibly screw it up since it's divine and man can't hurt that which is divine. This is what prompts a lot of global warming denial (the more moderate crazies do acknowledge it but refuse to acknowledge man has anything to do with it, since, you know, it's impossible because of that divine creation crap). I would much rather see people not drive SUVs, not litter, recycle, and so forth, but I really don't like this means of getting them to do it. It's always been inherently dangerous that because people put so much stock in a holy book, that if you can interpret parts of it just right, you can then make those people do what you want. Sure, the Bible was used to argue against slavery, but it was used to argue for it, too. The Bible was used to justify denying blacks equal rights in the US, and also to justify they deserve equal rights. For some time now the Bible has been used to reject environmentalism, so now the Green Bible champions it. What's the harm? Hmmmm

Letter Writing

I wrote some letters today, and I thought I'd share them here. The first is to Tom Sears and his shit-eating grin in response to his opinion piece entitled 'What are the atheists afraid of?':

Tom,

I find it comical that you ask what atheists may be afraid of yet your column is a fear induced rant full of unsubstantiated claims about atheists' characters and intents. I suggest you ask your so-called atheist friends if they're simply lazy, or if they've in fact failed to "give religion a serious chance". Isn't it quite "ego-centric" to make generalizations about people simply because you believe them so and not by actually doing any research? Maybe you should give talking to your friends a chance.

I also invite you to "fill many columns" to support your claim that "our nation was founded on Christian/Judean principles". Good luck with that.

Since you've invoked statistics, I would have to ask why you're afraid of a mere 3% of Americans? You charge that atheists fear what their children may think if they see a nativity scene and further charge that we won't allow our children to make an informed decision on their own concerning gods and religion. This begs the question, would you allow for YOUR children to make such an informed decision? Have you?

You also may be very surprised to hear that as a federal holiday, Christmas does not solely belong to Christians anymore. By being federally recognized, it is a holiday for ALL Americans; therefore, your assertion that atheists should get their own holiday is not just ignorant but hateful and exclusionary. Christmas now is a holiday celebrated in a variety of different ways, many without any religious affiliation at all (ie - Santa, Rudolph, mistletoe, lighted trees, gift-giving, big meals with friends and family, etc).

Christmas, unfortunately for you and Mr. Tabor, is quite something for many without Christ just as it is for you with Christ. Rather than fear that, begrudge that, and attack the characters of those for whom that holds true, perhaps you could open your heart to simply accept that and realize it is no threat to how you choose to celebrate the holiday. Failure to do so merely reinforces the charge of the FFRF's display, that religion "hardens hearts and enslaves minds".

The second is to a Frederick Meekins who recently wrote 'Have Yourself A Theistic (Not Atheistic) Little Christmas':

I think you've put the cart before the horse here:
"If anything, what atheists exhibit when they manifest goodness is remaining Judeo-Christian moral capital. These individuals professing godlessness remain largely good because they have been acculturated in a milieu largely Biblical in its underlying ethical orientation."

If anything what the religious exhibit when they manifest their holy morality is the prevailing moral capital of their times and locale. It's social morality that dictates the selective choosing, interpretation and discarding of the moral law of their holy books. From rationalizing ham sandwiches and shrimp cocktails to rejecting slavery and stoning adulterers and unruly children, society's morals dictate "Judeo-Christian moral capital", not the other way around.

Nazi Germany was not godless, so scratch that off your list. Also, Stalin prohibited abortions. How do you explain that? Furthermore, had the church not conspired to overthrow the Communists in a vain attempt to restore their lost power and place of wealthy privilege that they had grown so accustomed to, there very well could have been a much different relationship between church and state in Soviet Russia.

As history has shown, societies professing faith in a god, even a "Judeo-Christian" one, are far from immune from atrocities. I know, the religious like to point to how long ago (comparatively) such atrocities took place as some sort of justification that their moral system works. Ironically, that justifies just the opposite, and justifies my initial point. Social morality dictates religious morality, and as social morals in the West have generally progressed, so too have "Judeo-Christian" morals for the most part. Since the holy books haven't changed yet "Judeo-Christian" morals have over time, how can you argue that society needs "Judeo-Christian" morals? It's very clear which one is dependent upon the other.

Blending Right In

Happy Miraculously Busted Hymen Day!

This time of year, everyone is debating how to greet one another. Happy Holidays? Merry Christmas? Merry X-mas? How do you even say that? Do you literally say the letter "X"? Anyway, I certainly have no problem saying "Merry Christmas" since that's the name of the federal holiday, and since it's a federal holiday, that means it's a secular holiday. Back in the day, faced with the problems of so many people wanting to avoid work on Dec. 25th, the government decided the practical course of action was to just make the 25th a federal holiday. It was not, as some asshats like O'Reilly would have you believe, a federal celebration of Christianity and/or an acknowledgment of any of the following:
• the existence of Jesus
• his birth on the 25th of December
• any claim that he's divine
• that his birth was miraculous
• that the US favors Christianity uber alles

So all you Christians who are caught up in the "War on Christmas", you're fighting the wrong opponents. The entities who stole Christmas away from you were the government and the retail market. Go fight with them to reclaim your holiday. They've declared it to be something else, something secular, and thus usurped it from you, much like how your predecessors usurped this holiday season from others who saw it as a celebration of the Solstice, Saturnalia, birth of Mithra, Odin's most glorious bowel movement, or whatever.

Anyway, enough with all that. I say it's time to play "Play Along with Christians". Never heard of it? Oh, it's fun. See, you first accept something from Christianity and then follow that to it's logical conclusion(s). Sound easy? Well if not, just read along and perhaps it'll become clear. So in the spirit of Christmas, let's grant them the miraculous birth of Jesus. I know, quite generous. It's okay, it's part of the game. So the story goes Jesus' momma, Mary, was a virgin. Debate exists over what's a virgin, for instance some kids who have gone through Abstinence only sex-ed think anything but vaginal intercourse (including but not limited to anal and oral sex) is ok and you can still be a virgin. To try to avoid most arguments, let's just settle on virgin = no vaginal penetration. Alright, so no vaginal penetration means the vagina maintains its hymen (for those unfamiliar with vaginal anatomy or just hymens, here ya go). Now that means that when Jesus was born, Mary still had her hymen. You see where I'm going with this? That's right, when Jesus was born, he busted Mary's hymen on the way out, assuming he wasn't wee wee wee small, Joseph didn't plow her while she was pregnant (some guys are into that) and they didn't perform a c-section. Sooooo, this holiday for Christians in fact marks the most important busted hymen in history!

So don't know what to say at this time of year? Well for your Christian friends, tell them, "Happy Miraculously Busted Hymen Day!" You'll be glad you did, and see ya next time for another game of "Play Along with Christians".

Christian Bus Ad Fix

The Christians are now placing bus ads, because, well, they're so original. Anyway, I felt their ad was missing something. You know, leaving out an essential part of the story, so I went ahead and fixed it. Any Christian group interested in this fix, let me know. You can have it free of charge. Merry Christmas!

Cartoons are considered persons in Australia

In Oz, what you're looking at here is child porn since cartoon characters are considered "persons". Possession of such drawings will get you fined $3000(AU) and placed on a "good behavior bond". And I thought most Americans had trouble distinguishing between reality and make believe. Holy shit! Perhaps the Pope should be fined for possession of this work on display at the Vatican which contains nude depictions of Laocoon's sons:



or perhaps the Museo del Bargello should be held accountable for this nude depiction of the boy David from the Bible by Donatello:



Do these newly designated "persons" have rights? Can they sue, because if so, I think Wile E. Coyote v Acme could be very interesting.

"... The mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a 'person'."

Magic MRI

Well I suppose this tops toast or even salsa splatter - some woman thinks she can see Mary in her MRI. Personally, as you can see above, I instead see a dog with his ears up, like the Chihuahua they used to use to sell Taco Bell food. Of course that's what we humans do since we're inclined to see patterns and make order out of chaos, but this story goes beyond your typical silly "I see (insert religious entity) in my (insert thing)".

I want you to follow along with how this woman's mind is working. She's been suffering "countless medical problems" for about a decade. She's been praying and talking to her god about her health the whole time. Has he cured her? No. Has he eased the severity of her "countless medical problems"? No. Has he perhaps helped to pay her "overwhelming medical bills"? Well this woman thinks maybe, just maybe he has because you see, she's going to sell her MRI on eBay. That's right, while suffering and waiting for a miracle, praying regularly, she's rewarded with what she sees as a photo of Mary. I mean, it wasn't even signed! Imagine if you're suffering and you write a celebrity and that celebrity sends you an autographed photo. Maybe you'd think "what a dick" but at least you might make some money off selling it since it's signed.

Another nugget in this story is that supposedly she's suffering because, according to the DoJ, some Agent Orange leaked from a manufacturing plant in her hometown. One could certainly ask where was her god on that day, but shit, why hasn't he at least sent her a lawyer to sue this plant so she doesn't have to go in debt paying the medical bills from that accident?

But, you know, everything happens for a reason, right? All part of the big guy's plan, so this poor lady sees her ordeal as part of the plan, and this whole thing for her to "raise awareness". Yeah honey, you're raising awareness alright. You're just making everyone even more aware how silly your beliefs are and how sad the effects of it are. I certainly hope the best for her and hope that she eventually gets properly compensated, especially in light of the cause of her troubles.

PROP 8: The Musical