Both McCain and Obama have received controversial endorsements recently. McCain from a John Hagee a televangelist nutjob with anti-Jewish/Catholic views. Obama from Louis Farrakhan another whackjob with anti-Jewish views

Despite their views, both of these “religious” men actually have large followings. Give Obama credit; he “denounced and rejected” Farrakhan’s endorsement. McCain, however, so desperate for conservative religious right support he has not denounced Hagee’s endorsement.

It is amazing what is legitimized under the name of religion.

Any candidates accepting atheist endorsements?


In this case the Intelligent Designers are Mitsubishi engineers.

This car is the most fun for the money of any automobile made. I owned a 2003 and the new 2008 is much better. As fast as a Vette, more practical and roomy than a M3 at a fraction of the price. And all-wheel-drive, too!


I was listening to Coast-to-Coast radio the other night on the drive home. I always find it humorous. There was a guest discussing the Ancient Astronauts. I hadn’t heard this nonsense discussed since the 60’s when Chariots of the Gods was a phenomenon.

Shortly into the discussion, I realized this is the same theory as Intelligent Design without the religious underpinnings.

I guess there are really no new crackpot theories, just recycled old ones.

Huckabee Girl

This is too good!!

Why can’t we atheists just let it go. Certainly we agree religion has influenced America, so what’s the big deal about the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. How could it hurt. I definitely support the separation of church and state argument that has been extensively debated, but I have a more basic reason for wanting God out of the pledge. I love my country.

The United States of America is real, it exists, unlike God which is not real. If one is an atheist God is like the Tooth Fairy. If you love your country and you hear this:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under the Tooth Fairy, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Would you want to make this pledge?

It’s not that I don’t respect the right to believe whatever you want, I just don’t want what you believe to reflect unfavorably on the country that I love and respect.

According to many news articles the FCC is going to levy a $1.43 Million fine against ABC for an episode of NYPD Blue showing a nude woman from the side, exposing both a partial breast and her buttocks. More interestingly, it was aired in 2003; yes, five years ago.

Let’s see, maybe influence of the religious right on our federal government has gone too far; not to mention the waste of time and money.

An inside source provided the transcript that follows from a tape that was made during some of the discussions at the FCC on this issue:

“Gentlemen we are here to discuss the 2003 episode of NYPD Blue where there was side nudity showing a partial breast and buttocks. I have checked with our outside adviser Reverend Jones, excuse me, I mean Mr. Jones. He says we must take action and definitely recommends that we fine ABC; he leaves the amount to our discretion.”

“Reading from FCC Regulation 25-4/45-; showing excretory or sexual organs in prime time is subject to a fine of up to $3 Million.”

“Is the maximum fine appropriate in this case?”

“Not since it was just the side with no nipple shown; about $1.5 Million is right.”

“I disagree; this TV program was aired in 2003. Some children who were irreparably harmed by viewing this vile TV filth are now old enough to be fighting in Iraq.”

“Excellent point. We should fine ABC the maximum for harming our fighting men and women.”

“Yes, do it for the troops.”

“Yes, for the troops.”

“Amen, $3 Million for the troops.”

“As much as I too would like to fine at the maximum, $1.5 Million is about right on the basis of only the side and no nipple as discussed earlier. And you know the left wing agents will join ABC to fight this no matter what the fine is. A lower amount will be easier to defend.”

Do you guys think children that were breast fed are more or less harmed by nipples on TV than those that were not?”

“That’s an excellent question, but I think we should take that up another meeting.”

“Maybe even a little less than $1.5 Million would be appropriate since the nipple and no actual excrement was shown.”

“OK, then $1.25 Million.”

“Too little.”

“Before we settle this, I would like to ask the honorable Senator from Idaho, who is sitting in with us today, if he has any comments. What do you think Senator?”

“What is the possibility that I could view the TV clip in question? That might help me more effectively comment on the fine you have proposed. Oh, and I probably should have asked this earlier, but was the nude person in the TV clip a woman or was it a man?”

“Sorry Senator, the clip is not available today. $1.43 Million it is. MEETING ADJOURNED!”

Belief in God is funny to me in any setting, but I really crack up when entertainers and professional athletes thank God (or Jesus) for their latest achievement or award. Of course, these proclamations have nothing whatsoever to do with even their God. It is all about the self-indulgent celebrities themselves. What they are really saying is, “Look at me, God knows all about me, loves me and made sure I got this award.” Such ego can you believe it? This becomes even more ridiculous when an athlete does something like genuflecting before a free throw; could anything be less important?

If they were truly believers in their God, their acceptance speech might be, “God, enough already! I already have a $100 million contract, adoring fans and eight bookcases full of awards. Please, please can’t you use your powers to something better like feeding starving children.” Not likely to see this speech anytime soon.

As an atheist, the hilarious acceptance speech at the Emmy Awards several months ago by Kathy Griffin was right on point. Not only did she mock celebrities that thank Jesus, but also stated her own belief of his role in her receiving of the award.

No mainstream groups ever complain about the God thanking speeches that go on ad nauseam, but predictably there was an overreaction to Griffin’s speech. Outrage, threats and calls for censorship all followed her speech. This was different only in degree to the reaction to some Danish cartoons. When blind faith is challenged this is the usual reaction.

A more logical and meaningful response, if they wanted to issue a challenge, would have been to provide proof that Jesus had indeed helped Griffin. Don’t often see this more reason based approach used, however. Or maybe just a chuckle would have been appropriate. It does seem, however, that blind faith believers have no sense of humor.