Religion

The Atheist-Scientologist-Satanist Coalition

What if the government sponsored a prayer and everyone came?

|

I understand tonight's prayer involves some sort of squash.
Peanuts

This week the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional for a government body to open a meeting with a sectarian prayer. Coming up next: A grand coalition of people with unpopular religious views protests the practice by asking to be included in the prayer rotation. That's what one atheist activist wants to see happen, anyway, as the Religion News Service explains:

David Silverman, president of American Atheists…described a scenario that may raise eyebrows among some atheists: working with religious groups to fight against the ruling.

"That's what we have to do, not only organize the atheists, but the Satanists, the Scientologists," he said. In a conversation before his talk, he added Muslims, Jews and Hindus. "We as atheists have the responsibility to urge them and push them and get them in there to get their prayers" said at public meetings.

In other words, something similar to those stunts where people put (or threaten to put) statues of Satan or the Flying Spaghetti Monster alongside a more mainstream religious display that's been erected on public property.

Question for the commenters: Which arm of the government really ought to begin its meetings with an invocation to Lucifer, just on truth-in-advertising grounds? Don't say "all of them"; pick out the most deserving.

NEXT: Life After Liberation: Triumph and Tragedy in South Africa

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Question for the commenters: Which arm of the government really ought to begin its meetings with an invocation to Lucifer, just on truth-in-advertising grounds?

    The White House Press Corps.

    1. I like the way you think

    2. Which arm of the government really ought to begin its meetings with an invocation to Lucifer, just on truth-in-advertising grounds?

      All of them. But if you want me to pick just one, it’s probably the ATF. Or the IRS.

      1. +1 to ATF.

      2. I’m liking IRS.

    3. FDA

    4. with an invocation to Lucifer

      Lucifer, “light-bringing” q.e.d. Department of Energy.
      Or maybe
      Lucifer, “bringer of dawn” q.e.d. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

  2. “This week the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional for a government body to open a meeting with a sectarian prayer.”

    Folks, it’s your superstition. Please keep it to yourself.

  3. Which arm of the government really ought to begin its meetings with an invocation to Lucifer, just on truth-in-advertising grounds?

    The IRS if you want to be snarky, Congress if you want to get real.

  4. Hands down…Congress. Not even close.

  5. Is the idea here, “We object to you exercising your right = So, since we failed to stop you in the courts, we’ll simply flood the venue you choose to use with other “users” (who’d otherwise not care to do so) such that your exercise becomes stymied”?

    I’m not sure who here is really establishing any ‘moral high ground’. I also find the idea of ‘agitating for repression of someone’s speech by…. overwhelming people with More Public Speech….’ sort of … uh, does this pass the Alanis Morrisette “Ironic” test?

    I have long pointed out that “freedom of religion” does not = “freedom from religion”. I find it odd that the desire for all these “unpopular” religions to join in their exercise of ‘free speech’ only emerges for the purpose of attempting to stymie someone else’s. call me crazy but I think its pretty shoddy stuff.

    – that said, I’m all for Pagan rituals starting the day @ High School.

    Which arm of the government really ought to begin its meetings with an invocation to Lucifer, just on truth-in-advertising grounds? Don’t say “all of them”; pick out the most deserving.”

    The IRS. Thank you. You may now pay me the soul of your firstborn child.

    1. Just like there are “anarchists” who run around downtown during marches and break shit and steal things and there are actual anarchists (like me), there are “atheists” who seem to only want to fuck with religious people, and there are actual atheists (like me). In both cases, the assholes who appropriate the name fuck shit up for those of us who are actually what we say. It’s very, very annoying.

      1. This sums it up pretty well.

      2. You called it dude. That is exactly it.

      3. I don’t have a problem with others educating people who have trouble anticipating obvious unintended consequences about the logical outcome of their policy preferences.

        I can’t really be bothered to do it myself, though, since it is kind of dickish.

      4. Yes, this. I am totally fine with atheists who want to not participate in something religious, but the ones who go around objecting to other people’s religious expressions annoy me.

        1. I’m an atheist, and I’m a lot closer to your opinion than the idiots who want muck up the works just to muck it up.
          The talk with their Invisible Friend seems to me to be the most harmless portion of the proceedings. Just once I’d like GOD to show up sternly saying, “Like Hell you’re going to claim my wisdom for this crap!”

      5. I don’t doubt that you feel strongly that your version of your labels is the correct one, and that you are a good example of said labels. But how can one person’s self-imposed label be any more objectively correct than someone else’s?

        1. Well you can still be an asshole without violating the NAP. No one will like you though.

      6. there are “atheists” who seem to only want to fuck with religious people

        The counter to that is that many religious people consider “fucking with” to be me just opening my mouth and saying what I actually believe.

      7. So, you’re an antichrist and an anarchist.

        1. Yeah? Well, I want to be anarchy. Itself.

          1. It’s the only way to be.

    2. So you’re saying I can be part of any religion I want, as long as I’m part of *some* religion? That I must partake of some religions rituals?

      I think the issue here is that its very *exclusive* to openly acknowledge (and ‘seek the guidance of’) one religion while snubbing all the other philosophical frameworks that others mold their lives by.

      It is, in essence, a (small, really tiny) establishment of religion (or a rota of religions), elevating the favored faiths above the others – something which goes counter to our governing principles (such as they are) on how government should be.

      1. “Agammamon|5.10.14 @ 4:16PM|#

        So you’re saying I can be part of any religion I want, as long as I’m part of *some* religion? That I must partake of some religions rituals?”

        No. Unless you define ‘partake’ as ‘be exposed to’, which is sort of silly.

        Public forums are places where speech can happen. People choose to participate in events in public spaces (or not). Religious speech isn’t ‘special’ speech that is disallowed. People are free to use public spaces to exercise their rights. No one is forced to participate. as long as there are no barriers to others using public space as well (as noted here – this is precisely what is happening), there is no ‘establishment’.

        Government does not “acknowledge” anything by ‘not interfering’ with people actively choosing to participate in some kind of ritual. It is not ‘snubbing’ anyone by ‘failing to censor’ others.

        Some have argued that when one particular group has predominance in the use of a given public space, that there is an ‘appearance’ of an Endorsement. This argument is belied by the fact that nothing stops any other group from similar use (as noted here)

        so = to address your above post, paragraph by paragraph:

        1) No and No. 2) No it isn’t. 3) That is an incorrect understanding of the establishment clause and all the legal rulings thus far surrounding religious speech in the public sphere.

        🙂 All of this is far more easily said by simply stating that “Freedom of Religion” /= “Freedom From Religion”.

        1. Well, as we like to point out here – government officials doing government business are not private actors. To open your *business* meeting with a prayer is something between you and your employees.

          To open a government meeting is to give a patina of governmental preference to a particular group and undermines the appearance of impartiality and equality under the law.

          And its not easier said as many on the religious right use that very phrase as justification for imposing religion into public life. As many consider atheists to be inherently untrustworthy compared to those who believe their actions will *have* to face an inescapable cosmic judgment.

          1. For as much as it hurts to say this…government employees are people. Their right to freely practice their religion is protected against Congress making laws prohibiting it.

            1. Do we allow school prayer again then? Its not *required*, you can always stand out in the hallway until the rest are done.

              1. Yeah, I believe so. Isn’t prohibiting it in a public place, Congress passing a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

                Just can’t pass a law mandating it. I don’t see how a public school is any different than the public square. It’s free speech, no?

                And from this position, I can further argue government having no place in education to begin with. If it was all private there wouldn’t be an issue at all.

              2. Student-led prayers are allowed. Teachers, as agents of the state, are not allowed to lead in prayer.

                They can, however, led the students in worship of political personalities. Literal. Worship.

                1. Teachers aren’t people with rights?

    3. David “Dickhead” Silverman – ” We as atheists have the responsibility to…”

      No Dave, No you don’t.

      GILMORE – “I have long pointed out that “freedom of religion” does not = “freedom from religion”.

      Yes it does.

      1. This. Secular government = government without religious influence. America is a secular republic.

        1. There was plenty of “religious influence” in the Founding of the country, although is was nonsectarian. I doubt if any of the Founders beyond perhaps Paine would have been upset at the idea of opening a government meeting with a nonsectarian prayer.

          1. Paine was a Deist. Do they have something against prayer?

            1. Ah, well then maybe even Paine would have been OK with it. I thought he was the most anti-religious of the bunch, but maybe not by modern standards.

              1. Atheist then and atheist now are two different things. Lots of science has happened in the last 240 years, not the least of which is Darwin. It’s why atheism exists and deism mostly doesn’t.

                I’m not saying all deists would have become atheists, but most of them would have.

      2. What if Gilmore is saying something similar to: freedom OF speech /= freedom FROM speech?

    4. “I have long pointed out that “freedom of religion” does not = “freedom from religion”.”

      Then you’ve long been wrong.

      Freedom of religion is freedom from having other people’s religion imposed on you by the state.

      Government meetings should be about government business, not religious ceremony.

      “I can’t hijack a government meeting with my religious ceremonies. Help, help, I’m being repressed!”

      I’m always amazed at how *entitled* some Christians feel to cram their pieties down other people’s throats. Every time someone from a religion *other* than one of the state approved monotheisms suggests that maybe they too should have an *equal* right to be a theocratic prick, that’s equated to censoring Christians.

      Huh? Other people get the *same* rights, and that’s persecuting Christians?

      I’m hoping they contact the Discordians and the Church of the Sub Genius. If we must have religious services, let’s have some fun ones.

      1. Freedom of religion is freedom from having other people’s religion imposed on you by the state.

        It’s also being free to worship when and where you please. If you are not free to pray during a government meeting, then your right to religious freedom is being infringed upon.

        Now I suppose you could make an argument that government workers lose their rights when they’re on the clock, so to speak. But if that’s what you believe, then say it.

        1. How fantastically asinine that is.

          “I can’t take a dump on the floor in the middle of the room in a government meeting. Help, help, I’m being repressed.”

          Oh, yeah, government workers are supposed to *work*, not spend all day talking to their invisible friends.

          “My employer expects me to work instead of talking to my invisible friend all day. Help, help, I’m being repressed.”

      2. Then you’ve long been wrong.

        All one needs to do is read 1A to show you incorrect.

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

        I can and will practice religion anywhere I fucking please, whether I’m a government employee or not, and Congress will make no laws establishing a religion OR prohibiting its practice…ANYWHERE!

        GILMORE is absolutely correct.

        1. Your copy of the Constitution is old. You need to get the new copy, with Obamacare built right in!

          1. This issue is THE PERFECT example of years of where judicial decisions, each building upon the last, have COMPLETELY reversed the plain text of the Constitution.

            It doesn’t get any more black and white than “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, and yet Congress has made laws prohibiting the exercise of religion.

            Judicial precedent is fucking evil.

            1. “Establishment” in particular in the context of colonial America has a very specific meaning. It has been stretched very far indeed, twisted to fit all manner of hobbyhorses.

              An established church is a church funded by the State, using the tax dollars of all people. A prayer at the start of the council meeting might be inappropriate, or rude, or silly, or inconsistent with a secular society, but it is absolutely constitutional under the federal constitution.

              1. This reminds me very much of the anti-gun argument about the 2A only applying to the armory of the late 1700s.

                1. Congress shall make no law…

                  How to make it clearer than that?

                2. This reminds me very much of the anti-gun argument about the 2A only applying to the armory of the late 1700s.

                  Except it’s nothing like that. But nice try chickenhawk.

        2. Exactly. If I want to pray before every council meeting, I can do it. If you think that makes me a half wit and get me voted out off office because of it, you can do that.

        3. That’s not how the 1A works. The 1A does not allow appropriation of time slotted for government business into a religious ceremony.

          1. In that case, make religious ceremonies mandatory, 1A be damned.

        4. Anywhere you please?

          Not on other people’s property. What the hell is wrong with you people?

      3. Freedom of religion is freedom from having other people’s religion imposed on you by the state.

        That’s correct, but “imposing a religion” means something like forcing you to join a church, or at least participate in a religious ceremony. Simply having a short, nonsectarian religious ceremony that you witness is hardly an imposition. Witnesses can simply stay silent and make funny faces if they want.

      4. Somebody worships the Straw Man, I see.

  6. That’s a close call, but I have to give the award to the EPA, for its ongoing fight to stop all development and prosperity. Even the DEA has reasons (though twisted) for running a War on Drugs that has destroyed more lives (in person-years) than the Holocaust, but EPA is all about hating humans and declaring our needs and wants invalid.

    1. I think, technically, ‘development and prosperity’ are very much the tools of Lucifer. Temptation, pride, hubris, knowledge, tower of babel, etc.

      In theory, one ‘finds God’ through rejection of material things and self-abasement. Ergo = EPA is our holy hairshirt.

    2. . Even the DEA has reasons (though twisted) for running a War on Drugs that has destroyed more lives (in person-years) than the Holocaust

      That’s a retarded metric to use.

  7. “just on truth-in-advertising grounds?”

    The Prince of Lies Says = THERE IS NO TRUTH IN ADVERTISING!!
    (evil laugh)

  8. Somewhat appropriate. If only Congress were just shoe salesmen.

  9. Sometimes dude you jsut have to roll with it, thats all man.

    http://www.YourAnon.tk

  10. Sometimes dude you jsut have to roll with it, thats all man.

    http://www.YourAnon.tk

  11. The squirrels can even reach Anaon-bot. This is what it looks like when the world ends.

  12. Which arm of the government really ought to begin its meetings with an invocation to Lucifer, just on truth-in-advertising grounds?

    DEA

    Lies
    Violence
    Murder

    All part of the job in keeping America safe.

    1. Look, the DEA does arrest or kill insanely violent drug dealers, sometimes. I think.

      But from what I’ve seen, the ATF exists entirely to place people in jail for misfiling paperwork or for possessing pieces of wood or steel that were the “wrong” dimensions.

      You could make an argument that selling meth causes harm. I would disagree with it, but you could make it. But the ATF will put you in prison if you take a hacksaw, saw the barrel of a shotgun very short, and then lock it away and never fire it again.

      Grading on a curve, the ATF is worse.

  13. As an atheist it is safe to say Satanists and Scientologists are worse then Christians.

    1. Scientologists, maybe. They are pretty nuts.

    2. Satanists and Scientologists are better in terms of theocracy.

      Of course, the ruling theocrats – the Progressives – are much much worse.

      1. Satanists and Scientologists are better in terms of theocracy.

        Satanists, uh sure. They strike me as petulant indolent dickheads who made a “religion” out of mocking Christians, but they haven’t tried legislating anything (probably because there are what?, 5 of them).

        Scientologists on the other hand are litigious thugs who use the courts to sue anybody who dares challenge them or their beliefs. They’ve also been known to terrorize and harass apostates and critics. In a game of shitheads they punch well above their weight of numbers.

  14. CIA. They’re the lucifer of the lot, stirring up shit worldwide.

  15. To repeat what I said in an earlier thread, both the majority and the dissent allow for a role for prayers by members of organized religious groups at meetings of legislative bodies.

    The principle was established in 1983, Marsh v. Chambers.

    The question in the *Greece* case was whether the selection of people to give prayers was too heavily sectarian, that is, too tilted in the Christian direction.

    The majority said the courts shouldn’t supervise the details of legislative prayers.

    The dissent said that legislative bodies had to make sure that their prayer practices were inclusive of all the people, which could mean alternating between a Christian prayer on some days, Buddhist prayer on others, Muslim on others, etc.

    Neither interpretation offers a whole lot of solace to atheists, since both interpretations lets legislative bodies open their proceedings with invocations of a Sky Daddy/spiritual principle/superstition.

    1. The dissent said that legislative bodies had to make sure

      Legislatures asserting themselves over unelected judges? Madness! That will lead to the tyranny of the majority!

      Well, until the judges strike down something that the chattering classes like. Then we need the True Voice of the People to be heard, which will Overrule The Obviously Out of Touch Old Men.

    2. “The dissent said that legislative bodies had to make sure that their prayer practices were inclusive of all the people,”

      How are prayer practices inclusive of atheists?

      Oh, that’s right, we’re not people. I forgot.

      1. You could do what I do and politely stand silent. But decorum and simple human decency is something the evangelical atheists seem to have trouble with.

        1. Simple human decency is what is lacking in Christians who insist on rubbing their hatred of nonbelievers into the faces of nonbelievers, and using the power of the government to do so.

          Where atheists have the numbers, I’d just consider it bad manners to use the power of the state in an analogous manner against Christians.

          It’s just so peculiar to see those claiming to be uniquely entitled to use government force to spit in the faces of their neighbors bemoaning the lack of *simple human decency* in those they’re spitting on.

          1. Simple human decency is what is lacking in Christians who insist on rubbing their hatred of nonbelievers into the faces of nonbelievers, and using the power of the government to do so.

            By praying in front of you? Fuck you are a self-absorbed fucking twat.

            Where atheists have the numbers, I’d just consider it bad manners to use the power of the state in an analogous manner against Christians.

            Like, oh say, banning them from displays of their faith in the public square?

            Bad manners like that fuckwit?

            It’s just so peculiar to see those claiming to be uniquely entitled to use government force to spit in the faces of their neighbors bemoaning the lack of *simple human decency* in those they’re spitting on.

            YOU AREN’T BEING FORCED TO DO ANYTHING FUCKTARD!

            What the hell is wrong with you?

      2. You can not pray – that is your right … and you can stick your tongue out or scratch your nuts during the whole thing too.

      3. Tell me bbdd, why is a prayer any different than listening to the Westboro Baptist church say, “God hates fags” and “Thank God for dead soldiers”, or why must you put up with people burning flags or tolerate neo-Nazis spewing hate?

        It’s all free speech. You don’t get to silence people just because you don’t agree with them.

        1. Because it’s on government time.

          1. Which is a decent argument. It’s certainly a lot better then shrieking “OPPRESSION! THEOCRACY!” because someone said a 30 second prayer.

          2. So free speech doesn’t exist on government time?

            1. Is that like one of them there “free speech zones”? A free speech “period”?

              1. It’s like ‘I am working or doing work that precludes me from a religious ceremony’. In the same way you can’t be my employee and use company resources for religious purposes, you can’t use my government for religious purposes either.

                If you want to pray beforehand in a totally non-disruptive manner then fine.

                1. So what you’re sayin’ is…

                  You want Congress to make a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

                  If not, then fuck off, I’ll pray wherever and whenever I want, as it’s not against the law.

                  Corporations are people. Congressmen and government employees are people (for as much as that pains me).

                  1. Nope. No one is being told they can’t freely speak about or practice their religion. Saying they can’t use a government venue while using government time and money in order to convey their message . They have to use their OWN, not taking up other people’s resources in order to do it. I don’t care what they’re saying, I don’t even care if it’s religious or not. They could be reciting the goddamned Atheist Manifesto, or discussing how they’re all going to get together for poker, and they’d still be wrong to do so on my time and money.

                    Are you gonna tell me that keeping “In God We Trust” off money would be prohibiting free exercise of religion too? Or preventing the publication of religious pamphlets with government time and money? After all, that’s someone’s religious expression, so saying they can’t use government time and money on those would be a law prohibiting free exercise according to your logic.

                    1. Saying they can’t use a government venue while using government time and money in order to convey their message.

                      So you are quite clearly making a federal law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

                      Now, if the school wants to make teacher employment contingent on following school policy, that’s another matter entirely. You can even talk me into state law precluding prayer in school. But Congress has NO SAY in the matter.

                    2. There is a difference between some people praying before a meeting, or even during a meeting, and a prayer as part of the official agenda.

                    3. While I understand the point you are making, even if the prayer IS part of the official agenda…

                      Congress has still made no law respecting an establishment of religion.

                      The intent wasn’t to separate church and state, it was to ensure there was no state religion. Praying by government officials in a public place is a far cry from Congress making a law establishing an official government religion. Limiting officials from praying is a direct violation of the second part of the clause.

                    4. Asking Congresspeople to do their jobs when they’re supposed to is not a restriction on the free exercise of religion.

                    5. How are they not doing their jobs again?

                      I mean other than the obvious upholding of the constitution and not shitting all over everyone’s rights.

                    6. How are they not doing their jobs again?

                      They’re not doing their jobs by taking time out that’s SUPPOSED TO BE FOR OFFICIAL BUSINESS for personal business. Professing their adherence to their faith is NOT official business.

                    7. Me bowing my head before a meeting has been called to order to thank the allspark for creating transformers is NOT taking time away from “official business”. How does that change if two of us do it together?

                      Also, I thought we were libertarians. Shouldn’t we be encouraging them to do whatever BECAUSE it keeps them from doing their official business?

                    8. So you are quite clearly making a federal law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

                      I tell you you need to get off my lawn if you want to pray, am I preventing your free exercise of religion? No. Free exercise of religion doesn’t entail the right to use other people’s resources in order to exercise your beliefs.

                      You want to exercise your religion? Fine. LEAVE THE FUCKING MEETING. No one’s preventing you from doing so, just don’t waste our time and money on it. And you still haven’t addressed how that’s any different from saying government employees can’t use that same time and money to print religious pamphlets. Probably because it isn’t.

                    9. I tell you you need to get off my lawn if you want to pray, am I preventing your free exercise of religion?

                      You are NOT Congress.

                      CONGRESS shall make no law…

                      Why do people insist upon reading shit into those words when they don’t approve of the outcome? It says what it says. It needs no interpretation. If the head of the DEA, FDA, DOE, DOJ, or EIEIO decides they want to prohibit prayer at work because it interferes with productive work-time…have a nut.

                      BUT, CONGRESS, I repeat CONGRESS, shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

                      Why do you insist on reading something into it that isn’t there? Such a prohibition may be enacted at other levels, but they’re not allowed to be ANY federal laws on the topics of establishing a national religion, prohibiting worship, restricting speech, restricting the press, restricting people from assembling (peacefully) or restricting people from petitioning the government.

        2. It isn’t different.

          Westboro Baptists shouldn’t be able to hijack a government meeting with their religious bigotry either. Nor communists. Nor bowlers.

          The meeting isn’t about you and your invisible friends. Your attempt to make it so is an imposition on everyone else.

          Free speech isn’t the right to take a dump in your neighbor’s living room either.

          1. Your attempt to make it so is an imposition on everyone else.

            In the public square, you have no right to “not be impositioned”. That’s what freedom of speech means.

    3. Actually, your bit about alternation isn’t quite right. The minority failed entirely to define what constituted sufficiently inclusive prayer practices, but suggested at one point that a Judeo-Christian invocation, as involved in the Marsh v. Chambers case, was somehow sufficiently inclusive of Hindus and Buddhists, while a specifically Christian prayer would somehow not be.

      The majority position was instead forthright that any prayer is by definition sectarian, and that the council had no restriction on what sects could make prayers was sufficient neutrality.

      1. So that Satanists can lead prayers too?

        1. The majority opinion is perfectly okay with Satanic prayers in the rota.

          The minority opinion seems to think it’s okay to open every single session of a state legislature with an identical “Judeo-Christian” prayer, but impermissible to have various community members make “sectarian” prayers at a town council. It is accordingly impossible to say what they would think about a Satanic prayer. Presumably, some specifically sectarian Satanic prayers would be off-limits, while more generic ones would not. But they don’t draw any lines, so exactly what would work is anyone’s guess.

          I’m not saying that the majority made the best possible decision, but it’s light-years ahead of the mess that Kagan’s opinion would have made of things.

  16. I know of a chaplain who opens his invocations with “I invite you to pray in your tradition as I pray in mine.”

    I always wondered what would happen if someone started screaming and thrashing around on the dirt after he said that… after all, speaking in tongues IS a tradition.

  17. I am a solid atheist. I have been since I was 12 years old. I went through a phase where I was a bit of an evangelical atheist….in my late teens to mid twenties. As I became to understand human nature better and better, I became less and less of an evangelical until I completely lost it.

    Ironically, the fiery, evangelical atheists that are so fond of pointing out the ignorance of those who believe in superstitions are themselves unaware of their own ignorance.

    1. I find evangelical atheists as tiresome as evangelical Christians. There is no functional difference to me. Both groups are convinced as to their righteousness, disdainful of conflicting beliefs, prone to hyper-sensitivity over the mundane, and quite frequently will not shut the fuck up about it, ever, if they know you are not one of them.

      1. Hey all U Fart-Smeller? Ooops, I mean Smart-Feller? Athiests? Here are some thoughts fer U to stew on!
        One God, many gods, or one Government Almighty? Or many Governments Almighty, all fighting each other? Gurus or gorillas, guerrillas, revolutionaries, revolutions, evolution, creationism? SOOOO many choices! What are we to believe in, anyway? Some people have become atheists; I posted about that the other day, as you may recall? People who think that God doesn’t believe in himself (that He needs self-esteem therapy), and since God doesn’t believe in Himself, we shouldn’t, either? You have doubtless read of my Deep Theories here before, so not to belabor that part of it? My NEW material to post about, today, delves more deeply into examining un-belief, but since Reason has a word limit here, here is part I, parts 2 through 99 coming shortly?

        1. So anyway, I’ve been having these on-going arguments with my atheist friends, and they told me, “See, Madeline Murray O’Hair, SHE is the ONLY one who REALLY quite properly, understood EXACTLY how God does NOT believe in Himself, and only SHE in Her Devine (Anti-Devine?) Perfect Understanding, was fit to be “Ruptured” through the space-time vortex portal, straight to the Athiest Heaven that She deserved, and all the rest of us? Even the less-than-perfect athiests? Are “Left Behind” after the “Great Rupture”. And since Madeline Murray’s body was never found, I had to accept their argument, She was the PERFECT atheist, and only SHE, in Her Perfect Disbelief, had been Ruptured? Her and Her alone? to be continued?

          1. ?BUT THEN THEY FOUND HER DEAD BODY!!! The arguments of my atheist friends were utterly crushed! I had just BARELY started to think that maybe they were correct! Now, I just dunno WHAT in blazes to think any more!!! What do y’all say, especially you athiests?

            1. I say you should go far away from your keyboard and think about it for several years.

      2. prone to hyper-sensitivity over the mundane, and quite frequently will not shut the fuck up about it, ever

        Haha, you don’t say…

  18. Old British comedian Dave Allen – “Good Night, and may your God go with you”. I think he didn’t want to get blowed up by the IRA – no matter how much fuin he made of the CoE.

  19. Oh, and that alt-text is a solid “A” effort.

  20. NSA! We do not monitor emails/phone calls. We only keep metadata. Well, we might accidentally capture a US Citizen’s phone/email content. Don’t pay any attention to that Snowden behind the curtain. Well, sometimes we capture US phone/emails content, but we don’t keep it. Well, we would like the phone companies to keep the billions of phone/emails content we have captured. We will only access the ones for terrorists, we promise.
    ROFL.
    I vote for NSA if I can’t pick all of them.

  21. I vote for the FDA. Their purpose is to deny the sick treatment. Not even the IRS beats that.

    1. Dallas Buyers Club

    2. I voted for them too.

      But I disagree with your characterization.

      Denying the sick treatment is the *means*, for the most part. The purpose is to exert control (an end in itself) and shake down citizens for money.

  22. I vote for the FDA. Their purpose is to deny the sick treatment. Not even the IRS beats that.

    1. I vote for the squirrels.

      1. As The SQRLSy One, I resemble your remark? The FDA is a good choice of whom we should WORSHIP, according to Scienfoological Wisdom, actually? And as Chief Scienfoologist, I also resemble having Scienfoology being left out of the Atheist-Scientologist-Satanist coalition? Whose butt do I have to suck around here, anyway!?!?! ? To learn more about Scienfoology, please see http://www.churchofSQRLS.com ?

  23. The declare ‘The White House Press Corps’ the winner.

    The problem is that the IRS, DEA, CIA, and all those other groups honestly believe they are doing the right thing. They believe their own propaganda.

    But the White House Press Corps? No, they are completely unashamed in their desire to serve power and lick the boots of their infernal masters. They know full well they disseminate lies, and they do it anyways, because they are obedient foot soldiers of evil, not because they are stupid or misled.

    1. “…all those other groups honestly believe they are doing the right thing. They believe their own propaganda.”

      I am sure the devil does too.

    2. Does Lucifer not think he is doing right?

  24. Which arm of the government really ought to begin its meetings with an invocation to Lucifer, just on truth-in-advertising grounds?

    Since Lucifer is the “Bringer of Light”, Ima say the Department of Energy or (if there can be only one) the Department of Education.

  25. “Pray now the Prayer of Revenge. On whom do you seek revenge?”
    “I seek revenge on Rachel Ray and the Food Network. Can’t you make her eyes fall out or something? Tits fall off?”

    1. hate that show.

      Totally unbelievable and it destroys my suspension of disbelief.

      The idea that an ugly selfish socially repugnant bass players cant get laid is absurd to the extreme.

  26. An Atheist-Satanist-Scientologist can stand up in public and proclaim their belief that there is no Space Satan any time, I say.

  27. Which arm of the government really ought to begin its meetings with an invocation to Lucifer, just on truth-in-advertising grounds?

    The entire judicial branch. This is the branch that is supposedly the enforcers of moral principles in society. Yet unsurprisingly different codes of morality exist for a privileged class of badge wearing bureaucrats. Hail, Satan!

    1. The judicial branch is supposed to enforce the law, not some morality, though in our theocracy, it often amounts to the same thing.

      1. “Theocracy”

        Chortle.

  28. Here is the Prayer to Satan to start public meetings:

    Oh Great Evil One protect us from those who wish to force us to do good.

  29. I pray that every morning!

  30. It can’t be the POTUS because he is Jesus Christ.

  31. Jesus said pray in private. So those invoking him in public are not Christians.

    1. That seems rather harsh and sweeping. Violate one of Jesus’ teachings and you’re out?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.