Chronicling the follies of religion and superstition, the virtues of skepticism, and the wonders of the real (natural) universe as revealed by science. Plus other interesting and educational stuff.
"Tell people there’s an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure."
“If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed”.
“Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.”
Worried that liberals are trying to make Santa Claus black, Fox News host Megyn Kelly felt the need to assure children viewing her program on Wednesday that both Jesus Christ and Santa Claus were white men.
Kelly made her claims concerning the caucasian nature of both Santa and Jesus while responding to an article that appeared in Slate earlier this week. The author of the article, Aisha Harris, wrote that she had always been confused as a child because the Santa in her home had brown skin like her, but the Santa in malls and on television was always white.
In her article, Harris suggested that Santa be given a makeover, and that “America abandon Santa-as-fat-old-white-man” and adopt a penguin in his place.
Kelly was not pleased with the notion of Santa as a penguin, suggesting Harris had gone “off the rails.”
"For all you kids watching at home, Santa just is white. But this person is just arguing that maybe we should also have a black Santa. But Santa is what he is.
Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change, you know?
I mean, Jesus was a white man too. He was a historical figure, that’s a verifiable fact, as is Santa - I just want the kids watching to know that.”
While Santa is a fiction, researchers suggest that a historical Jesus would be a Middle Eastern Jew of medium, if not dark, complexion.
Fox News just wanted to set the record straight, in case any of you pinko liberals wanted to suggest that Jesus wasn’t a white man, from the Middle East.
In a case before the Massachusetts Supreme Court, atheist lawyer David Niose argued that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Equal Rights Amendment of the state’s constitution.
“I’m tired of them,” Perino complained on Wedneday. “I remember working at the Justice Department years ago when I first started right after 9/11 and a lawsuit like this came through, and before the day had finished, the United States Senate and the House of Representatives had both passed resolutions saying that they were for keeping ‘under God’ in the pledge.”
“If these people really don’t like it, they don’t have to live here,” she added.
“Yeah, that’s a good point,” co-host Bob Beckel agreed.
“If you don’t believe then why do you care?” Perino wondered. “It’s just like some guy’s name.”
The irony, of course, comes from the fact that those words were not even in the original pledge of allegiance so it is the atheists who are trying to stay true to founding principles, and the Christians who are trampling the constitution with this pious charade.
Then it gets extra silly when they say “it’s just like some guys name.” Oh yeah? Then why all the butthurt??
Back in 2006 during the Bush administration, when the same type of surveillance was under the apparent cyclical scrutiny, Sean Hannity became the biggest supporter of the policy. In fact on his show he excoriated those who opposed it many times. The Mediamatters mash up below is a classic that shows the hypocrisy. While this may be funny to some and upsetting to others, the reason this type of hypocrisy must be explored is because of the corrosive effect it has on the body politic.
Pre-Obama:The intent here is not to solely point out the hypocrisy that is being engendered by this recycled debate. It is to show how the American people are being hoodwinked by the media. One can make an argument on either side of this debate that is both plausible and constitutional. This debate however must be intellectually honest. To date it has not been on either side.
We know that you are against the NSA data mining. We know that you are against the NSA surveillance program. So the question is, where does the Democratic Party, what will you do if you are elected to power to make our country safe from the war on terror. Specifically what would your party support.
You have Pat Leahy saying that he doesn’t want an NSA surveillance program. Nancy Polosi, the woman who’d love to be Speaker, she is against the NSA surveillance……
Is it right to say that issues regarding national security be it the NSA surveillance program, the data mining program, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay that Democrats are weak on issues involving national security.
Our techniques are working. We’ve got the NSA program here, we have the Patriot Act program here. In light of this how close this was,it’s staggering to me that we are even debating the use of these techniques in this country even at this time.
Big Brother is monitoring your every move whether it be online or on the telephone. Let’s talk about why this story, why is it important to you.
Number one, this is America and as law bided American citizens you have a right to privacy. Number two, these actions by the Obama administration are clear, very clear violations of the fourth amendment, which prohibits unlimited search and seizure. Number three, the Constitution, it is our rule of law. If we do not respect and honor the Constitution, then anarchy and tyranny will then follow.
The problem is the inconsistency of those engaged in the debate, the lack of pragmatic logic on some, and the complicity of the media in misleading Americans. It is true that Sean Hannity is nothing more than an ideologue with a dedicated following for which he is the puppeteer. It is also true that most Americans do not take him seriously.
The ‘respected’ media however is not very far behind Sean Hannity in either being manipulated by stories or being a party to the manipulation of stories. The NSA story has been out since 2006. The surprise and outrage being articulated by the mainstream media is at best fabricated for ratings.
Using and manipulating these stories have consequences. They take all the oxygen away from more important stories. Why is there no continuous story of a job recovery comprised mostly of substandard jobs? Why is there no continuous coverage of the real effects sequester is having on the poor and the middle class?
Allowing the same parties to take different sides of the same issue for political gain simply allow the metastasis of misinformation. Who can forget the media not stressing that the Healthcare Mandate was a Republican/Heritage Foundation idea that under Obama Republicans ran from. Who can forget that the carbon tax was a capitalist/Conservative/Republican approach, trading carbon, that Sarah Palin and others then labeled cap and tax.