Christian Mob Protest Atheist Sign

Around 500 christian protesters turned up at at the capitol steps in Washington last Sunday to protest against the holiday sign erected by Wisconsin's Freedom From Religion Foundation in which religion was described as "myth and superstition".

Rev. Kenneth Hutcherson, the pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond must surely be awarded with the most hypocritical quote of the day award when he said "just because you must represent everyone in the state doesn't mean that you put up with intolerance from the people that you represent".

Now here is a little quiz for you. I want you to identify which of the following two positions best describes "intolerance".
1 - You can have your signs and we can have ours, or.
2 - only signs which support my position should be displayed in a building funded by all tax payers and all minorities should be prevented from having signs.

Rev. Ken apparently wasn't the only imbecile present at the rally. State Rep. Jim Dunn, a Vancouver Republican come a close second with his quote; "It is time to chase out of the house of God all the unbelievers and evildoers". And which "house of god" would that be jimmy boy? The capitol building? Read the constitution, dick head.

Onward Christian Cowards

Whatever happened to those brave, valiant christians from yesteryear? The ones who would take criticism, work hard to refute it and maintain their integrity?

Well it seems those types of Christians have been replaced with the whiny, professional victim christians which we see today. The type who see any criticism of their belief as a personal attack, Any belief which isn't exactly identical to their own as an opponent in some kind of holy war and use censorship as their weapon of choice.

I mean, take YouTube for example. Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the religion/atheism crowd on there will know that it is very rare to find a video from a so-called "christian" which allows ratings and even rarer to find one which allows unmoderated comments. What are they afraid of? Are their views so fragile and untenable that they have to be protected from criticism at the expense of their integrity and intellectual honesty?

It doesn't even stop there. Not happy with simply prohibiting criticism of what they see as "the truth" on their precious channels the next step in their campaign of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice is to stop opponents criticising their beliefs in their own videos. And they do this via a conceited campaign of false DMCA claims, Mass fake voting and by looking for something to cry about to YouTube; "boohoo, the naughty man suggested - in his video about evolution - That animals might have sex. I demand this offensive material be removed".

It's good to see that these filthy cowards are finding it hard to maintain this level of dishonesty though. Recently venomfangx, Or poster boy from creationist stupidity as he is unaffectionatly known, Was forced to make a humiliating public apology after filing false DMCA claims against thunderf00t in an attempt to silence him and then lying about filing the claims by pretending it was someone else. of course, he was only sorry after he got caught and at the time was more than willing to be a deceitful piece of shit for Jesus.

Then comes CSE, Or creation science evangelism, The anti-science cult lead by convicted criminal Kent Hovind. Their tactic is to get evolutionists banned from YouTube by claiming their use of CSE material is breaking copyright law. of course, They, and YouTube, fail to realise that using someone elses material for critique or review purposes is allowed under copyright law and that Kent Hovind himself said on his own website at the time "None of the materials produced by Creation Science Evangelism are copyrighted". But then, Their goal wasn't to protect their copyright, It was to stifle descent.

I say atheists and evolutionists, Especially on YouTube, continue to use these liars material in any way they see fit and keep exposing their dishonesty. Their eventual intellectual demise is going to be messy, But judging by the depths they are recently prepared to sink to, is very close.

Passio: The Gay Jesus Porn Film

As the blasphemy laws in the UK no longer get to say what we can watch on the grounds that god might not like it the British Board of Film Censors has approved, without cuts, The gay porn film, Passio, in which Danny Fox plays a homosexual jesus christ.

A couple of years ago Passio would have gone the same route as Visions of Ecstasy, A low budget art-house film, Which had depictions of the crucified jesus being caressed on the cross. Visions of Ecstasy was refused a licence by the British board of film censors solely because it violated our archaic blasphemy laws, Laws designed to protect the fragile feelings of the religious in cases where someone has the audacity to believe different to them.

Christians and their apologists can feel free to be offended, And also free not to watch the film, But hopefully now they will realise that they aren't free to tell other people what to do and they aren't free to have the law protect them against criticism or content that they personally don't agree with. No doubt christians will be flocking to sex shops dressed in seedy macs and shielded by shades to purchase this film, Their leaders certainly will be. Leaders who, if they they aren't buying homosexual sex, are taking it without permission from young boys.

Something about christianity has always struck me as being incredibly homoerotic anyway. If they aren't talking about how another man loves them they are banging on about feeling him "in them" and every so often they symbolically eat and drink him in a ritual that could as easily be described as symbolic oral sex as it could human cannibalism.

LiveLeak Remove "Fitna" After Death Threats

Popular video site LiveLeak have been forced to remove the controversial film critical of Islam FITNA after it received death threats from primitive, violent intolerant muslims.

On visiting LiveLeak visitors are greeted with the following message;

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.

Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

I personally don't see this as a sad day for freedom of speech. I see it as a joyous day in which islam has exposed it's self as the intolerant, Savage violent religion that it is. Which is ironically the very thing the film by Geert Wilder set out to expose. So thanks Islam, Thanks for making our point for us.

It's also ironic that many so called "moderate muslims" are seeing this as a victory for islam. Do they think the film has been removed out of respect? Do they think the film was removed as a gesture of good will? It was removed because, In typical fashion, Muslims start threatening to kill people every time they don't get their own way.

If you are a muslim and disagree with the films content you should also disagree with it's removal. It;s removal is a direct result of the very thing the movie was exposing.

If you haven't seen the movie yet, Youtube still have it on their servers. Fitna The Movie

Muslims Want Muhammad Pictures Removed From Wikipedia

In another demonstration of how they want everybody to do as they say and follow their rules, offended muslims have started a petition to have Wikipedia remove images depicting their prophet Muhammad. The petition currently has 32,000 signatures

In Islam pictures or Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other holly figures are not allowed, but on wikipedia they has published some pictures that are showing not only a body with white face but an image that has a complete face.. that is even not allowed by SHITAT fact of Islam.
i request all my brothers and sisters to sign this petition so we can tell wikipedia to remove them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
specially this image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpg

See, The tolerant religion of islam wants only one thing. They want everybody to do as they say all of the time. If us infidels could just agree to that one small request, Everything would be fine.

What they don't realise is that the only people obliged to follow the rules of islam are muslims. They can invent whatever wacky rule they like, But what they can't do is demand everybody else abides by it.

Are they offended? probably not, Not really. But even if they are, So what? They are entitled to be offended. Just like i am entitled to be offended every time they demand that others change their behaviour to suite them.

Of course if we were to have a competition over who is offended more they would no doubt feel entitled to win because they are offended over disrespect to their religion, Which apparently trumps every other kind of offended.

Take Offence Now! Everyone's Doing It!

With the christian professional victims taking offence to the Golden Compass you may be feeling left out. what is there for us to be offended about? Well, If you are Atheist, Apart from the obvious, Not a lot. well, certainly nothing that will receive media coverage.

But if you are religious and feel left out there are a list of movies [*] that you can, And should, Be offended by. So what are you waiting for? take offence now and start stamping your feet!

'The Da Vinci Code' (2006)

Who was offended? Catholics
What was their beef? The Vatican, along with several Catholic groups around the world, objected strongly to the assertions made in the book and movie about the motivations of the Catholic Church in allegedly covering up a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

'The Passion of the Christ' (2004)

Who was offended? Jews
What was their beef? Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" was one of the biggest hits of 2004. Its stark images of Jesus' crucifixion and the violence toward him, as well as villainous portrayals of many Jewish people, created a religious furor. Rabbis around the world said the film had the potential to transmit potent negative images, attitudes, stereotypes and caricatures about Jews and Judaism.

'September Dawn' (2006)

Who was offended? Mormons
What was their beef? "September Dawn" is described as a love story set against the backdrop of a 19th century massacre of a wagon train of Utah settlers. Though the massacre is documented, Mormons decry the portrayal of church members as murderers.

'Water' (2005)

Who was offended? Hindus
What was their beef? Shooting on the film, which depicts the plight of Hindu widows, was disrupted when fundamentalists and supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party and its mentor, the Sangh Parivar, staged raucous protests.

'Submission' (2004)

Who was offended? Muslims
What was their beef? When Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, a descendent of Vincent van Gogh, released the 10-minute film "Submission," with its criticism of violence against women in Islamic society and its images of seminude actresses with passages from the Koran displayed on their bodies, he became the target of death threats. He shrugged them off, but on the morning of Nov. 2, 2004, he was killed in the streets of Amsterdam by Mohammed Bouyeri.

'Hollywood Buddha' (2003)

Who was offended? Buddhists
What was their beef? Director Philippe Caland's comedy about a struggling movie producer who buys a Buddha head and finds it changes his luck so enraged Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka and Thailand that they marched on government buildings, threatening to fast -- even to the point of death -- if the movie wasn't pulled from distribution.

'Bowfinger' (1999)

Who was offended? Scientologists
What was their beef? The Church of Scientology has gained a reputation for being litigious in protecting its reputation. "Bowfinger" screenwriter Steve Martin's riff on the religion, called MindHead in the movie, drew a more muted response. Makers of the movie (starring Martin and Eddie Murphy, pictured) downplayed the connection to Scientology, and Scientologists kept their protests to the pages of local newspapers, criticizing reviewers who drew any comparison to Scientology.

[HT: nmmng]

Red Bull Scrap Blasphemous TV Advert

Cry baby christians get their own way yet again by stamping their feet and claiming to be offended. This time offence was caused by something as harmless as an advert for the caffeinated energy drink Red Bull.

Father Marco Damanti wrote to the makers of the soft drink calling their advert a "blasphemous act" and demanded that the company scrap the advert, And as expected, They happily agreed.

The advert depicts the nativity with Mary, Joseph and jesus along with four wise men instead of three, The fourth is bearing a gift of red bull.

[Hat tip: FreeThinker]

Top 10 Banned Books In America

It seems the religious right are still stamping their feet, But this time they aren't telling us what we can do or say, They are telling us what we can read.

Here is a list of the ten most banned books in America (By most banned we mean banned in most states). Thanks to the American Library Association who compile this list for giving us an insight in to what really pisses the religious off.

"And Tango Makes Three" - for homosexuality, anti-family, and unsuited to age group;

"Gossip Girls" - for homosexuality, sexual content, drugs, unsuited to age group, and offensive language;

"Alice" - for sexual content and offensive language;

"The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things" - for sexual content, anti-family, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;

"The Bluest Eye" - for sexual content, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;

"Scary Stories" - for occult/Satanism, unsuited to age group, violence, and insensitivity;

"Athletic Shorts" - for homosexuality and offensive language;

"The Perks of Being a Wallflower" - for homosexuality, sexually explicit, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;

"Beloved" - for offensive language, sexual content, and unsuited to age group;

"The Chocolate War" - for sexual content, offensive language, and violence.

They sure don't like homosexuality those Christians. Makes one wonder why their god would have created them in the first place.

If i had my way the christian bible would be on this list for genocide, infanticide, murder, incest, Telling people to "rip open pregnant women" and various other horrific acts.

If you can get your hands on any of these book do society a favour. Buy a few copies and leave them in place of the bible in various Churches.