The Blair Witch Project: Former Prime Minister Warns of Atheists Among Us

225px-Tony_Blair_WEF09200px-Blair_Witch_ProjectFormer Prime Minister Tony Blair used a speech at Georgetown University to warn of the threat against the West that is growing at alarming rate. No, he wasn’t talking about terrorism, the recession, or even Swine Flu. He was talking about atheists and the menace they present to the world. Not since leaders tackled the dangers of witches in our midst has a politician sounded such an alarm. This politician happens to be the leading contender for the first “president of Europe.”

Blair sounded the alarm for all God-fearing citizens to be on the look out for atheists who he seems to portray as an equal threat as terrorists. He warned that “[w]e face an aggressive secular attack from without. We face the threat of extremism from within.” He called on religious people to unite against atheists who offer “no hope” and threaten the demise of the West. How dangerous? Just read this incredible line: “Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God’s name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century.”

“[A]n aggressive secular attack from without”? I do not recall many atheists or agnostics driving car bombs into markets or invading nations to fight for the “one and true [lack of] faith.”

Could you imagine if Blair singled out a faith for such analogies to terrorism? There are millions of atheists around the world who simply do not believe in God. Yet you have one of the world’s leaders calling for a united campaign against them and calling their beliefs a danger to mankind.

The only question is whether Blair will be stopping in Albuquerque to join City Councilor Don Harris at the front lines against the atheist hoard, here.
For the full speech, click here.

77 thoughts on “The Blair Witch Project: Former Prime Minister Warns of Atheists Among Us

  1. I always knew that Blair wasn’t to be trusted, I just didn’t realise how delusional and idiotic he was.

    Still, he’s a politician so I should have known better.

  2. It’s funny to say atheists are a danger to society because atheists are the least likely to commit crimes and least likely to get divorced of any religious group.

  3. He called on religious people to unite against atheists who offer “no hope” and threaten the demise of the West.

    Any astute observer knows that “the West” needs no help whatsoever to bring about its own demise. There is a sense of mysticism in that failure:

    Advanced atheism does not offer “no hope”, in those aspects of it which look forward.

    Ecocosmology is a more sane viewpoint because it does not care if you believe in deity or not, so long as you work for the survival of the human species rather than behave as if you are trying to destroy it Mr. Tony Brown.

  4. mespo727272 1, October 9, 2009 at 7:30 am

    Blair, Bush – Birds of a feather?

    Should be tarred and tethered together.

    so deflect, place the blame, secure your position on the right hand of the _______?

  5. oops … I meant “Mr. Tony Blair” not “Mr. Tony Brown” … Freudian slip I guess, indicating that Brown and Blair are one and the same.

  6. I like the title of this post. Although, to be fair to witches, aren’t most witches at least pantheists rather than atheists?

    Not that Blair would take notice of any significant difference between the two, and would likely call them both the spawn of Satan.

    I never realized Blair was an extremist.

  7. After a bit of fish and chips, toad in the hole, and spotted dick, I can only assume himself proud as a peacock ready for sharing his noble values of war mongering and poodle ing..

    Eeeee uuuuu Prime Minister indeed!

  8. Mr. Blair’s faith does face an “aggressive secular attack.” An attack that uses rational arguments as its weapon. If Mr. Blair finds rational arguments a threat to his faith, the problem, dear Tony, is not the atheists.

  9. It is about time that we atheists got together and started burning Christians at the stake.

    The odious Tony Blair might be a good one to start with, and should be followed by the other leaders of the coalition of the willing responsible for the deaths of over a million Iraquis, George W Bush (USA) and John Winston Howard (Australia).

  10. Tony Blair, George W Bush, John Winston Howard and the most recent two Roman Catholic popes are excellent examples of why I have gone from being a Christian via atheism to becoming a devout Anti-Christian.

  11. I used to think that Tony Blair was fairly rational and his eagerness to invade Iraq puzzled me. Now we know, he was not rational at all but a raving religious loon perhaps even worse than George W Bush.

    We know that George W told the French President that in relation to Iraq he was on a mission from God, and that latter idiot did not let the world in on the secret until it was too late.

    If ever there were three men who really truly deserve death by slow and excruciating torture, they are the three leaders of the coalition of the willing. It is apparent by now that Barak Obama deserves to be added to the list.

  12. Patrick Oden.

    Most witches weren’t witches, just people subjected to enough enhanced interrogation techniques to say that they were witches to make it stop.

  13. Have things really changed that much? Do they really care?

    Trial by ordeal is a judicial practice by which the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined by subjecting them to a painful task. In some cases, the accused was considered innocent if they survived the test, or if their injuries healed; in others, only death was considered proof of innocence. (If the accused died, they were often presumed to have gone to a suitable reward or punishment in the afterlife, which was considered to make trial by ordeal entirely fair.)


  14. Blair is an Evangelical Christian–and it also apperas a believer in Creationism. I guess that’s why he and Dubya got along so well.

    Things are getting scarier and scarier. I’m going to watch my tongue lest I be charged with blasphemy–or castigated for being a non-believer.

    From the Independent UK (June 13, 2004)

    Revealed: Blair’s link to schools that take the Creation literally

    IoS investigation: Critics voice serious doubts over Christian academies run by millionaire car dealer and backed by PM
    By Nicholas Pyke

    “A controversial chain of schools teaching Biblical “creationism” has been given Tony Blair’s personal support despite serious doubts raised by parents and teachers, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

    “Mr Blair, said to be the most religious Prime Minister since Gladstone, has backed the millionaire car dealer Sir Peter Vardy in his attempt to take over seven comprehensives and turn them into Christian Academies promoting Old Testament views of the world’s creation. This includes the claim that it was made in six days, 10,000 years ago. Two of Sir Peter’s schools are open already, in Gateshead and Middlesbrough, and a third is under construction in Doncaster.”

    (I hope I typed that URL correctly.)

  15. Tony Blair was an anglican and converted to Catholicism. Sir Alec Guiness was also a notable convert from anglicanism to Roman Catholicism. Glad Mr. Blair is on board. He is to be commended..

  16. Yo, Tony! You just call on those nice christian boys at Blackwater to take care of those evil atheists and extremeists that belong to any other faith than your own. The crusaders will save you!!! (I’d always wondered if Blair was sincere in his insanity and I see now he is.)

  17. From Elaine quote of the Independent article…

    “Mr Blair, said to be the most religious Prime Minister since Gladstone, has backed the millionaire car dealer Sir Peter Vardy in his attempt to take over seven comprehensives and turn them into Christian Academies promoting Old Testament views of the world’s creation. This includes the claim that it was made in six days, 10,000 years ago. Two of Sir Peter’s schools are open already, in Gateshead and Middlesbrough, and a third is under construction in Doncaster.”


    This is because Mr. Blair is a very smart man. He understands a populace who is “God fearing” is much easier to control than one who doesn’t believe in God at all and could care less. A fearful population is much more apt to capitulate to the will of the state (i.e. The Patriot Act).

    If you can keep everyone fearful in the world of form (terrorist attacks, crime) and keep everyone fearful in the realm of spirit (there is a God that is watching you and judging you), they become totally fearful and more faithful to the state. That’s my 2 cents anyways.

  18. I’d like to point out how interesting it is that he used the phrase “scorn God.” In order to scorn God you have to believe in God (otherwise you’d be scorning the idea of a god).

    The one of the most insulting parts of Evangelical Christianity is the idea that everybody deep down believes in God, but for some reason atheists pretend not to.

  19. In the last years of his Prime Ministership I thought something not quite right with Blair. Then, upon leaving office he quickly “converted” to the Roman Catholic faith. Now he seems to have fallen hook, line and sinker for all that RC malarky—not that it’s all that different from other religious malarky on the subject but the RC church has a long and storied history of witch hunts and inquisitions based upon superstition and the threat that disbelief in any form represents to the atrophied views of that institution. In short, he’s kinda crazy and certainly should not be given any sort of position of power. Neither should anyone listen to his ravings. He’s completely gone off the deep end and has no intellectual credibility.

  20. A society that has no problem with a father figure that watches and judges their every deed and thought, will less likely to have a problem with a big brother government that does the same thing.

  21. horus,

    I was raised a Roman Catholic–and attended parochial school for twelve years. I got “real” science–not creationism. I learned about Darwin. I was taught that the stories in the Bible were allegories. I don’t know what’s with Blair and his form of Catholicism that would lead him to believe that the Earth is just 10,000 years old.

    I suppose every religion has its share of fundamentalists and fanatics–maybe some more than others.

    FYI: I’m now what would be called a “fallen-away” Catholic.

  22. Elaine M.,

    A real man will oblige you happily, or even unhappily. I have done my best under any and all circumstances.

  23. I saw the film the “Blair Witch Project”, many years ago. It was not very scary, although I jumped out of my seat a couple of times. The scariest film I have ever seen was The Exorcist. I had the opportunity to have a lengthy conversation with Mr. Blatty (the author)of the book in Santa Monica back in 95-96. He had just finished a new novel, and had a book signing at Barnes and Noble in Santa Monica. He autographed the novella I puchased and we talked at great length about the book and film the Exorcist. He coincidentally wrote the screenplay and won an Oscar for his efforts. The case is based on a true story. He substituted a little girl for a boy named Robbie, in his book. Robbie(pseudonym) was the young man who was actually possessed! He lived in Maryland with his parents and was greatly influenced by his aunt Harriet. She was fascinated by the occult, and exposed young Robbie to a ouija board. Robbie and his aunt would play with this game after school and he became obsessed with its’ use. Then inexplicably his aunt died suddenly, creating a great void in young Robbies’ life. He was crestfallen at her death and continued to play with the ouija board. His parents were not alarmed at his using it, but were concerned because he was neglecting his friends and even his school work. Eventually a series of terrifying events began to unfold at the Mannerheim home(pseudonym). Knockings and rappings were heard emanating from the walls and the attic. Scratching and clawing noises were heard beneath Robbies bed! His parents became alarmed and confused at this phenomenon that was manifesting in the home. Robbie was taken to a Lutheran pastor, a Rev. Rein. He agreed to have Robbie spend the night at his home and became terrified beyond words when night fell. Robbie levitated before the ministers eyes! and a cup of cocoa, floated around the room. The minister was a believer in parapsychology and not a “literal” devil. He instructed the family to seek help through the intervention of the Catholic Church. His contention was that “they” believed in this phenomenon and could assist them. Robbie was now speaking languages he had never studied and become even more sullen and morose. The Priest who interviewed Robbie was convinced that the boy was in fact possessed, as he met the criteria that the “rituale romanum” set forth in diagnosing a possessed person. He spoke latin and conversed freely in French and an assortment of other languages. He also expressed extreme hostility toward images of Our Lord and especially when having to set foot in the Church. He became extremely violent and irascible when brought to the rectory. The family ultimately moved to Saint Louis, after the exorcism had begun in Maryland. It was unsuccessful in Maryland and the family sought the help of the Jesuits at Saint Louis University. The exorcism of Robbie continued at the Alexian brothers Hospital. While undergoing the ritual Robbie converted to Catholicism (his family was Lutheran). He ultimatley received the Sacrament of Communion as well and his family all converted. Robbies’ exorcism was a success, only after many months and the pious and tireless efforts of the Jesuit priests who so patiently worked and prayed for Robbies deliverance. If I am not mistaken Robbies exorcism was completed and he was restored spiritually on the day of the Feast of Saint Michael the Archangel. I read the book, “Exorcism, the true case of demonic possession” by Tom Allen, many years ago. It was a bit scary, but the beauty was that Robbie was delivered and one could witness the triumph of Good over the powers of darkness.

  24. Look again. In Blair’s speech, the two sentences are not linked. They are purposely separate.
    You see:
    We face an aggressive secular attack from without. (period)
    We face the threat of extremism from within. (period)
    He is pointing to two common threats against peaceful religions. The atheists in the states have become quite anti-Christian and are at times, most vile. They are threats to Christianity and to Secular Christians as well. They have sued School Districts to remove the Ten Commandments, each year they protest the public displays of the Nativity and ususally win via the ACLU and they are removed. They have successfully sued to have concrete (historic) religious structures removed from off any government grounds. They try to sued to remove GOD from our Pledge of Allegiance. They have sued to have our motto “In God We Trust” taken off our coins. This is just the tip of ice berg when it comes to Atheism attacking, especially Christianity (which is the backbone of our value system) and other religions. I cannot speak for Europe or the rest of the world, but here in the States, the attacks are unrelenting. The attacks are under the guise of separation of Church and State, but are truly examples of hatred and contempt for the Christian. Mr. Blair is right, at least with regard to the States.

  25. Hematology:
    White blood cells (WBC),
    red blood cells (RBC),

    Differential Blood count:
    percentages of neutrophils,

    Chemistry profile:
    glucose (random),
    Blood urea nitrogen,
    total bilirubin,
    Serum Glutamic Oxaloacetic Transaminase (AST),
    Serum Glutamate Pyruvate Transaminase (ALT),
    alkaline phosphatase,
    total protein,
    C-reactive protein,

    WHO CTC 2.0 HEMATOLOGY Total WBC TOTWBC x10E9/L <LLN – <2 2 –❤ 1 – <2 <1
    WHO CTC 2.0 HEMATOLOGY Lymphopenia LYMPHOPENIA x10E9/L <LLN – 1 0.5 – <1 <0.5 –
    HEMATOLOGY Neutrophils/granulocytes NEUT x10E9/L 1.5 – <2 1 – <1.5 0.5 – <1 <0.5
    WHO CTC 2.0 HEMATOLOGY Platelets PLT x10E9/L <LLN – 75 50 – <75 10 – <50 <10
    WHO CTC 2.0 HEMATOLOGY Hemoglobin HGB g/L <LLN – 100 80 – <100 65 – <80 ULN – (2.5 x ULN) > 2.5 – (5.0 x ULN) > 5.0 – (20.0 x ULN) > (20.0 x ULN)
    ALT ALT – > ULN – (2.5 x ULN) > 2.5 – (5.0 x ULN) > 5.0 – (20.0 x ULN) > (20.0 x ULN)
    Alkaline Phosphotase ALP – > ULN – (2.5 x ULN) > 2.5 – (5.0 x ULN) > 5.0 – (20.0 x ULN) > (20.0 x ULN)
    Hypercalcemia HYPERCALCEMIA mmol/L > ULN – 2.9 > 2.9 – 3.1 > 3.1 – 3.4 > 3.4
    Hypocalcemia HYPOCALCEMIA mmol/L <LLN – 2.0 1.75 – < 2.0 1.5 – < 1.75 ULN – 5.5 > 5.5 – 6.0 > 6.0 – 7.0 > 7.0
    Hypokalemia HYPOKALEMIA mmol/L <LLN – 3.0 – 2.5 –❤.0 <2.5

    CaliforniaGirl –

    I am one of those that has contempt for Christianity (along with all of the other religions, or more accurately, bogus mythology) that people like you feel should dominate our lives and nation.
    Saying that Christianity “…is the backbone of our value system” (and I am assuming that you are referring to all of America’s value system – i.e. – the founders fathers of our nation) is simply wrong. Benjamin Franklin was an Atheist. Thomas Jefferson was a deist (i.e. – not a Christian).
    You can choose to live your life by any doctrine you choose. I really don’t care to know what your beliefs are. But do not feel as though you can choose to shove your beliefs down anyone else’s throat. The separation of church and state is a fundamental tenet of our republic, and I, for one, am happy to continue to support the ACLU in this (and all their other) pursuits.

  26. Horus – thanks for pointing that out, and to Elaine for pointing out that the zany “young earth” crap isn’t taught in first world Catholic schools. In fact, if Catholics bothered asking, the Vatican’s official positions are pretty clear that science has it about right on the age of the earth and universe and that evolution has actually been taking place. (They might try to throw an “Intelligent Design” overlay onto evolution, but not to say that it doesn’t pretty much happen as we have observed it to happen.)

    That said, there are plenty of “Catholics” who are more along the lines of Mel Gibson. As far as I know Mr. Gibson hasn’t been formally excommunicated, or if he has in some way “left the Church”, but his views and the views of many far-right nuts who call themselves Catholic are actually in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Vatican. (Then again, there are many progressive Catholics who hold views opposed by the Vatican also…)

    I’ll admit that I haven’t read Mr. Blair’s statements, but it sounds like they are in line with recent statements from the current Pope regarding a concern about the secularization of western culture. I don’t know about Mr. Blair’s motivations, but the Pope has been loosing a lot of well off “customers”, and that would certainly cause concern.

  27. Besides, as we all know the shunning of the teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and his true church of Pastafarianism, is leading to the decline in the global pirate population, and that, OBVIOUSLY is causing global warming. May all ye secularists and heathens be touched by the grace of His noodly appendage, afer we be boiled to death. ARRRR!

  28. Base
    You say you have contempt for religion. You have justified Tony Blair’s statement.
    No one shoves religion down your throat. Christianity has been around the U.S. for a long, long time. I cannot see where it has hurt anyone.
    I WAS referring to our forefathers. Almost ALL of them were at the least Secular Christians, but most were Christians. Our country is all about freedoms; freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press.
    Were you aware of the “agreement” signed by Obama and Egypt (Durbin conference) to be “mindful” of not offending religion?
    It’s not worded exactly that way, but says something about “limiting” freedom of expression. (Islam?)
    Could that be the reason Yale did not print the Mohammed cartoons? Jesus cartoons are everywhere. It’s a freedom of expression. I see no reason for not printing the Mohammed Cartoons. You see the double standard?
    All these years my friend, Jesus and God have been made fun of in the press and Christians have had to put up with it (because our freedoms and our laws must be respected).
    All I am saying is Christianity not an enemy and it would behoove you to protect it, because it quite naturally protects YOUR rights.

  29. California Girl,

    I’ve got a couple jokes for you:

    Knock Knock. Who’s there? Jehova’s Witness…

    Knock Knock. Who’s there? Mormons…

    Knock Knock. Who’s there? We’re getting a petition together to try and amend the California state constitution to define marriage based on our religious beliefs…

    Knock Knock, Who’s there? Candidate Obama, I’d like to reassure you that like all good American’s I’m a Christian…

    Knock Knock, Who’s there?

    Knock Knock, Who’s there? (You get the point).

    The primary focus Evangelical Christianity (note I didn’t say ALL), is the conversion of the unbeliever. As to your statement that you can’t see any harm caused by Christianity, I suggest you talk to those Native Peoples who had their children abducted under the pretext of raising them like as Christians instead of as savage heathens like their parents.

    I don’t hold religion in contempt, I hold fundamentalism.

  30. California,

    Do you suppose based on your statements that some Muslims would believe that Christianity is bent on attacking their religion?

  31. TO: California Girl-
    RE: Pledge of Allegiance…and the words “under God”

    I’m so old that I remember reciting the Pledge of Allegiance when it didn’t include the words “under God.” Those two words weren’t added until 1954.

    Here’s an excerpt of an article at that provides a historical background of the “Pledge of Allegiance”:

    The Pledge of Allegiance: Why we’re not one nation “under God.” by David Greenberg, a professor of history and media studies at Rutgers and author of three books of political history

    “Poor Alfred Goodwin! So torrential was the flood of condemnation that followed his opinion—which held that it’s unconstitutional for public schools to require students to recite “under God” as part of the Pledge of Allegiance—that the beleaguered appellate-court judge suspended his own ruling until the whole 9th Circuit Court has a chance to review the case.
    “Not one major political figure summoned the courage to rebut the spurious claims that America’s founders wished to make God a part of public life. It’s an old shibboleth of those who want to inject religion into public life that they’re honoring the spirit of the nation’s founders. In fact, the founders opposed the institutionalization of religion. They kept the Constitution free of references to God. The document mentions religion only to guarantee that godly belief would never be used as a qualification for holding office—a departure from many existing state constitutions. That the founders made erecting a church-state wall their first priority when they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution reveals the importance they placed on maintaining what Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore have called a “godless Constitution.” When Benjamin Franklin proposed during the Constitutional Convention that the founders begin each day of their labors with a prayer to God for guidance, his suggestion was defeated.

    “Given this tradition, it’s not surprising that the original Pledge of Allegiance—meant as an expression of patriotism, not religious faith—also made no mention of God. The pledge was written in 1892 by the socialist Francis Bellamy, a cousin of the famous radical writer Edward Bellamy. He devised it for the popular magazine Youth’s Companion on the occasion of the nation’s first celebration of Columbus Day. Its wording omitted reference not only to God but also, interestingly, to the United States:

    “I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

  32. The “churches” you used for your analogy Gyges are for the most part “religious groups” that are viewed as “cults or at best fringe elements of Christianity. Catholics and mailnline Protestants would not endorse the religious beliefs, or the modality of proselytizing that some of these groups employ. Most Catholics and mainline Protestants would run for cover when these people appear at the door. In large part do to the beliefs they espouse. The mormons are non-trinitarian, and are not even recognized as being Christians, because they reject the teaching of the Trinity. Other Christian denominations would pretty much follow-suit in this belief. This would apply to both JWs’ and LDS.

  33. I think a charitable reading of Blair’s remarks would emphasize that he’s speaking of secularism’s challenges to “faith,” rather than to “the West.” Even still, he’s dead wrong in equating secularism with “scorning God” and probably wrong about secularism offering “no hope for faith,” whatever that means exactly. But it is a somewhat less alarmist sentiment.

  34. California Girl–

    You said: “Christianity has been around the U.S. for a long, long time. I cannot see where it has hurt anyone.”

    I’m a resident of the state where the Pilgrims settled in 1620. The history of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is filled with stories of religious intolerance—and not just intolerance of Jews and Catholics, but of other Christian sects. Roger Williams, a cleric and the founder of Providence, RI, was expelled from Massachusetts for criticizing Puritanism.

    I doubt that the residents of Salem and its environs, who were hanged and crushed to death in 1692 after they were found guilty of witchcraft, would agree with your statement that I quoted above.

    I think it best to keep religion out of government and politics.

  35. I don’t know, but I like the scotsmen. In fact, I am part “scots” myself. Pass the HAGGIS and Dewars lads!

  36. Anonymously Yours, I was fortunate enough to marry a “real man”–one secure enough in his masculinity to let me be the one to make decisions about getting pregnant and going barefoot.

  37. Elaine M.,

    All choices are equal, so long as we think that they are. In a parallel universe even the unparalleled seemed parallel.

  38. Elaine,

    Interesting facts: the earliest known mention of haggis is in an ancient English cookbook.

    Scottish owes a bit to the French. Mary Queen of Scots brought a large number of chefs when she returned from France.

  39. Elaine M.,

    That is a very kind thing to say about your spouse. I am sure that he is lucky, blessed indeed.

  40. Elaine M.,

    I read a book and now I cannot find it, yes, actually read a book. OMG, I must run to confession as I am sure its a sin to read something that digress’ the RCC interpretation on this subject. In as much I found this


    “In the early 17th century, a wave of religious reform changed the way Christmas was celebrated early american christmas – winter holiday in Europe. When Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan forces took over England in 1645, they vowed to rid England of decadence and, as part of their effort, cancelled Christmas. By popular demand, Charles II was restored to the throne and, with him, came the return of the popular holiday.

    The pilgrims, English separatists that came to America in 1620, were even more orthodox in their Puritan beliefs than Cromwell. As a result, Christmas was not a holiday in early America. From 1659 to 1681, the celebration of Christmas was actually outlawed in Boston. Anyone exhibiting the Christmas spirit was fined five shillings. By contrast, in the Jamestown settlement, Captain John Smith reported that Christmas was enjoyed by all and passed without incident.

    And outlawed Christmas After the American Revolution, English customs fell out of favor, including Christmas. In fact, Congress was in session on December 25, 1789, the first Christmas under America’s new constitution. Christmas wasn’t declared a federal holiday until June 26, 1870.

    X-mass did not take on real importance in the US until after the civil war. See what the damn yankees did again and you thought it was over states rights. It was warping our minds with commercialism.

  41. AY, Elaine,

    What do you guys think you’re doing injecting history into a discussion of Religion’s role in the History of the U.S.?
    Don’t make me link to that picture of Jesus holding the Constitution.

  42. Gyges–

    I suppose it was those French chefs who were responsible for the invention of haggis au poivre–a well-known dish eaten by Scottish highlanders.

  43. Gyges 1, October 9, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    AY, Elaine,

    What do you guys think you’re doing injecting history into a discussion of Religion’s role in the History of the U.S.?
    Don’t make me link to that picture of Jesus holding the Constitution.
    Well if you do that then you must also include the secular picture of Herr Rove in front of the lady of justice with the scales that has been blindfolded.

    That is true don’t interject religion into politics or …..

    You know Jesus is not coming back until the christian drop there crosses, you think hes a fool. I think he would say, been there, done that and not again. Thank you very much….

    You know Jesus was not a red neck or else you’d seen on the cross the real last words, “Hey Ya’ll get a look at this….”

  44. AY,

    Can we also include a picture of John Ashcroft standing in front of the partially-nude statues that he had covered with blue drapes? I recall thinking at the time: Now he’ll be the only boob in the picture when he’s photographed speaking in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice.

  45. Elaine M.,

    Yes you can include a picture of John Ashcroft whom is standing in front of the partially-nude statues that he had covered with blue drapes!!!!!

    You said: I recall thinking at the time: Now he’ll be the only boob in the picture when he’s photographed speaking in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice.

    That is not true. Bush was there as well. Scalia, Thomas, Cheney… Lots of boobs in that administration. And you see Clinton was only caught with two at the Whitehouse. Well, at least one set before that….

  46. Elaine M.,

    Being this is Gyges request you must get his permission. You know those people with mathematical acumen.

    I have yet to get a response if 24 was a rational number when that officer only shot a person with 24 instead of 25 bullets. No response. It may take a while.

  47. AY,

    I’ve never been accused of having mathematical acumen. But I’ll give my opinion anyway regarding the number 24 in regard to the story you reference: I’d say the number of bullets, 24, was rational–but not so the investigators who found that the police officer acted in self defense.

  48. AY,

    I guess I should have written the number 24 is rational–and that using 24 bullets can be rational…depending upon the context of their usage. In regard to the investigators–some people can rationalize anything!

    Whoever gave police officer Lloyd the job of security detail in a school should be called to account in the matter of the student who was beaten.

  49. Elaine M

    24 bullets is rational if one wants to alledge self defence and does not want the guy against whom one allegedly defended ones self to be around to contradict.

  50. what an eejit. My hubby’s an xtian,, & I’m an atheist. He’s gotten into several fights over what the ‘real’ religion iis, & I have never gotten into an argument. Nobody has ever been burned alive, scalped, killed by an iron poker up the bum, ect.. in the name of atheism.

  51. There is no god. There’s a rational explanation for any phenomena you encounter. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid!

  52. a person who is confident and happy with his religion does not need to worry at all about agnostics. methinks mister blair has

    1 lost the royal marbles
    2 has some serious religous issues

    no wonder they got rid of him in britain.

  53. Whenever an evagelical simpleton tells me that i am going to hell for being an atheist, I simply tell him/her that”I’m looking forward to it because I’ll be the one who picks their punishment when You get there you hypocritical SOB.”

  54. “I cannot see where [Christianity] has hurt anyone.” – California Girl.

    That is because you refuse to see. You should feel convicted over that. Read this:

    And the “most vile” atheists that you say are attacking your godly idols and symbols are actually members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation which works to enforce the seperation of church and state which was guaranteed to us in the constitution. For years fundamentalist and evangelical christians have been working an agenda to establish Christianity as our national religion and to turn us into a theocracy. A lot of us are tired of that crap, even a lot of christians, and we don’t really care if you like it or not. Christians never care if we like it or not when they erect their religious idols in civic spaces.

    Really, aren’t you embarrassed to sound so ignorant?

  55. While Tony’s rant against atheists is totally uncalled for and absolutely ridiculous (assuming this blog is accurate, I haven’t checked it out), it is equally ridiculous to say that no one has been harmed by atheism. You forget Communist Russia and China as well as many of the eastern European countries that were part of the Soviet Union. Many Christians were killed for practicing their faith in opposition to state law. It is not religion that kills people. It is any ideology that is united with the power of the state that causes oppression and harm. That is why many Christians are strong supporters of separation of church and state.

Comments are closed.