Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – yet one more TrueChristian(tm) offers a “challenge” to atheists and fails

So, we have a Christian, Andy Bannister, who wants to ask “Why are some atheists so afraid of changing their minds?”.  This is a video, and of course, the comments are turned off.  So much for being the “confident” Christians that Solas claims on their website, eh?

Unsurprisingly, the video starts off with the usual false claims about atheists, how rude we all are for not blindly accepting what the particular Christian says, that we all evidently can’t come up with anything ourselves but have to repeat what other atheists say (which begs the question “since we are all repeating someone else, who is actually the originator of these things?”), that we have bad grammar and spelling (oh do call the kettle black, pot), and of course trying to be insulting by equating atheist with idiot, in the ever-so clever “village atheist” comment.

We end up quickly in the claims somehow atheists are fearful and this is “why” atheists don’t engage with the “best” arguments for Christianity.  This isn’t a new claim, it is just the “sophisticated theology” bit of nonsense that many Christians trot out, that atheists only pick the low hanging fruit to address.  This excuse is, of course, dependent on the theist being willfully ignorant about how atheists have indeed addresses those “best” arguments too.  This video isn’t for atheists, it is for a Christian to reinforce the false beliefs of himself and other Christians.  Apologetics aren’t for atheists, they are for theists.

Unsurprisingly, Andy says that atheists should “properly” examine the claims of the Christian faith.  The term “properly” comes up often in apologetics and the definition that is used this context is “in an acceptable or suitable way” not “in an accurate or correct way”.  It is nothing more than a code word for agreeing with the theist and not questioning what they say, something that is “acceptable” to them.

Andy goes on to appeal to authority in the form of Alistair McGrath, who evidently must be correct because he has a degree.  This fellow, anglican priest at Oxford (who defines atheists as ” I became an atheist – somebody who deliberately and intentionally does not believe in God and thinks that anyone who does believe in God is mentally deficient or seriously screwed up.'”, supposedly received a letter from a student that who became a Christian after reading one of McGrath’s books and the “very best” Christian philosophers.  Of course, this student was an atheist, because that makes the story.  This atheist never ever read the “other side of the argument” but when he did, poof, he became a Christian.  This of course ignores reality since this doesn’t happen every time, and indeed, atheists often become atheists because they did read the holy book of Christianity and realized what nonsense it is and read other books to see that the bible didn’t reflect reality.  To see McGrath’s other use of failed apologetics, here is a video/transcript of an interview with him.  This is the “quality” of McGrath’s arguments:  “Number one, there are a very large number of scientists who are religious believers; and these are not stupid people at all. ”  Quite a pathetic start, an appeal to authority fallacy.  Here‘s a more thorough take down of McGrath’s arguments.  If he is one of the ‘best’, Christianity doesn’t have much to support  it.

Andy goes on to repeat the claim that atheists don’t address the “best” arguments for Christianity by recommending these “best” authors like Rebecca McLaughlin.  Now, Dr. McLaughlin is one of those with again degrees, beloved by Biologos and is an entirely awful apologist.  This is her on her ‘one minute apologetics.”  “The Jesus of the Gospels is either God in the flesh or a terrible imposter. There is no middle ground.”  That is really all she has, nothing different from Paul saying, yep, we believe becuase we gotta believe.  She wrote a book, Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World’s Largest Religion.  That’s one assumption right in the title, since we know that Christians don’t consider each other Christians by the millions.  Looking at the amazon preview of the book, we see the usual apologetics, that somehow Christianity has dibs on every good human action and is the only thing responsible for human rights, the claim that persecution makes Christianity true, that somehow atheists have no morality, etc.  In other words, the same false and baseless claims, nothing new or “sophisticated” here at all.

He also of course tries to claim that atheists don’t read these arguments with an open mind and accusing atheists of being cowards and not “serious”, to again try to claim that we aren’t being honest or brave or seriously considering the material.  He also insists that pointing out that a Christian is wrong is being “rude”, doing the typical appeal to politeness when he has nothing else.  Nothing like a Christian accusing someone of lying and having no evidence for it.

It is interesting that Andy never mentions what a single one of these “best” arguments are.  One would suspect that is because when one of the arguments is dismantled, he can insist that wasn’t one of the “best” ones and then run to the next, never taking responsibility for his claims.

Atheists aren’t afraid of changing our minds.  We have no reason to .

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – some research that I didn’t want to go to waste re: Christianity and Nazism

since this research took a little time, no reason to waste it since the Christian I was replying to has prevented comments that show him wrong from showing on his blog.  As usual, this Christian, Michael,  ignores what he doesn’t want to admit to, and resorts to false claims to defend his need to invent a Christianity that has done no wrong.  Nothing new here if you know your history.  

Let’s look at some of Hitler’s quotes from Mein Kampf and his speeches. There is no problem in imaging these words from any conservative Christian:
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. ”
“This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief.”
“And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God”
“Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”
“For this, to be sure, from the child’s primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: ‘Lord, make us free!’ is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: ‘Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!’”
And now Staatspräsident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm in arm with atheism? No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these fourteen years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government.
” That’s because he despised Christianity (or as he called it, “the religion of the catacombs”)”
– a false claim from our Christian.  no source for that quote at all. This is a false claim.

”The Nazi philosophy itself was antithetical to Christianity, and Hitler knew this and planned for the eventual elimination of Bibles, crosses, worship of Jesus, etc.”
Nope, not at all, as you can see from the quote above.
The swastika was a common sign of good luck in pre Nazi says. The state library here in Pennsyvlania has hundreds of swastikas in it that are part of the ornate railing around the floors. The swastika, also known as the fylfot was a common thing in Christian culture.
We also have the problem when Christians try to claim that Nazis weren’t christians when they banned books on evolutionary theory, just like conservative Christians try now. This list is from the 1935 Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published these collection evaluation “guidelines” during the second round of “purifications” (saüberung).

1. The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new German (H.G. Wells, Rolland).
2. The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism.
3. Pacifist literature.
4. Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic (Rathenau, Heinrich Mann).
5. All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud (Emil Ludwig).
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).
7. Books that advocate “art” which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist (Grosz, Dix, Bauhaus, Mendelsohn).
8. Writings on sexuality and sexual education which serve the egocentric pleasure of the individual and thus, completely destroy the principles of race and Volk (Hirschfeld).

So, conservative Christians, do you recognize yourselves?
Again, I had to quote the information on the links given since our Christian tried to ignore what they said.  This is what got me banned, daring to show him wrong to his followers.
“The Fylfot was widely adopted in the early Christian centuries. It is found extensively in the Roman catacombs. A most unusual example of its usage is to be found in the porch of the parish church of Great Canfield, Essex, England. As the parish guide rightly states, the Fylfot or Gammadion can be traced back to the Roman catacombs where it appears in both Christian and pagan contexts. More recently it has been found on grave-slabs in Scotland and Ireland A particularly interesting example was found in Barhobble, Wigtownshire in Scotland.
Gospel books also contain examples of this form of the Christian cross. The most notable examples are probably the Book of Kells and the Lindisfarne Gospels. Mention must also be made of an intriguing example of this decoration that occurs on the Ardagh Chalice.
From the early 14th Century on, the Fylfot was often used to adorn Eucharistic robes. During that period it appeared on the monumental brasses that preserved the memory of those priests thus attired. They are mostly to be found in East Anglia and the Home Counties.
Probably its most conspicuous usage has been its incorporation in stained glass windows notably in Cambridge and Edinburgh. In Cambridge it is found in the baptismal window of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, together with other allied Christian symbols, originating in the 19th century.” – Wikipedia
“Its “Discovery” and Meanings in Modern Europe The symbol experienced a resurgence in the  nineteenth century, as a result of growing European interest in the ancient civilizations of the Near East and India. During his extensive excavations, the German  archaeologist  Heinrich Schliemann discovered the hooked cross on the site of ancient Troy. He connected it with similar shapes found on pottery in Germany and speculated that it was a “significant religious symbol of our remote ancestors.” Other European scholars and thinkers linked the symbol to a shared Aryan culture that spanned Europe and Asia.
In the beginning of the twentieth century the swastika was widely used in Europe. It had numerous meanings, the most common being a symbol of good luck and auspiciousness.”  – US Holocaust Museum
So we have a symbol meaning good luck and auspiciousness (auspicious: showing or suggesting that future success is likely) taken by Hitler who wanted to pretend that his reich would exist forever, who was a Christian who knew the use of the symbol, and then used it.

Again, we see that Nazism was built from Christianity from Hitler’s own words in Mein Kampf.  “Not only because it incorporated those revered colours expressive of our homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much honour to the German nation, but this symbol was also an eloquent expression of the will behind the movement. We National Socialists regarded our flag as being the embodiment of our party programme. The red expressed the social thought underlying the movement. White the national thought. And the swastika signified the mission allotted to us–the struggle for the victory of Aryan mankind and at the same time the triumph of the ideal of creative work which is in itself and always will be anti-Semitic.”  

And “Christianity was not content with erecting an altar of its own. It had first to destroy the pagan altars. It was only in virtue of this passionate intolerance that an apodictic faith could grow up. And intolerance is an indispensable condition for the growth of such a faith.”
And “Anyhow, the Jew has attained the ends he desired. Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another to their hearts’ content, while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve.” 
The Nazis added their own spin to Christianity just like every Christians does, for weal or woe. However at its root lies the need for a religion to create an “other” to hate and the lie of being a chosen people who must strive against those who disagree with them.  Christianity isn’t not alone in this. 

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Some oldies for this time of year

So, Passover and Easter are here and just as silly as ever.

Here are some of my oldies but goodies on these subjects:

https://clubschadenfreude.com/2014/12/09/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-let-my-people-go-for-a-long-weekend-the-peculiar-story-of-the-exodus-part-1/  (you can find links to the other parts at the bottom of the post)

https://clubschadenfreude.com/2017/01/18/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-960000-tons-of-what/

https://clubschadenfreude.com/2016/03/25/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-what-has-become-the-annual-easter-post/

https://clubschadenfreude.com/2015/04/05/what-the-boss-likes-welcome-to-easter-syncretic-religion-at-its-best/  And thou shalt of eat of this guinea pig in rememberance of me

https://clubschadenfreude.com/2013/03/27/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-easter-the-supposed-events-and-implications/

 

 

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – “Why can’t animals talk?”

of course this isn’t history but a sadistic story

Rabbi Gellman, who used to be part of the God Squad with a catholic priest, still has a syndicated column. I occasionally address them there. This time it’s a column that in my paper is titled “why don’t animals talk”.

Now many cultures have myths on why this is. They are just-so stories like Kipling wrote. Raven can’t talk anymore because he stole fire for mankind and carried it in his beak.

The answer we have from the rabbi to ostensibly a third-grade girl is that it is somehow to teach humans “not just about right and wrong but also about wrong and right and even more right.”   (Italics mine) What the hell? This certainly drives a spike into the objective claims of morality from theists. If this god allows something that it kinda isn’t good with, but there is a better idea, then why not require the truly “good” idea? The rabbi wants to have it that eating meat is okay with his god but its better if we could eat without causing some animal to “suffer and die”.

In this column, Gellman mentions Genesis 1:29 and Genesis 9:3. They are, with a little added for context (the specific verses are italicized):

26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”27 So God created humankind[e] in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 29 God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.” Genesis 1

Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.

22 As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night,  shall not cease.”

1God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4 Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life.” – Genesis 8-9

So, we have a god that has no problem with killing and burning animals for its own pleasure, so Gellman’s claim that this god is all about veganism isn’t true in the slightest. This god is so all about meat is that he rejects Cain’s offering of fruits and vegetables, and approves of Abel’s offering, also making it questionable why Abel was bothering with killing animals at all since they weren’t eating them, and why this god had to kill and skin animals to make clothes for the newly naked Adam and Eve. The rabbi claims that his god gives the allowance to Noah to eat meat “grudgingly”. That is no where in the verses.

The rabbi then gives a rather horrible little story (midrash) about how Noah wanted a hamburger. He has the snake being truthful and saying one has to make a hamburger (and seemingly implying that it was being evil, which begs the question, why was this snake on the ark?). Noah, for no reason other than personal want, kills and eats his friend the cow. This is from a person who chats regularly with this god. The end of the story is that animals don’t talk to humans because that Noah ate one of them and they are upset.

So are animals upset with this god too since it demands their death?

Which of the cows did Noah eat and how does this work with the other utterly silly story in the bible where it can’t make up its mind on how many animals Noah took with him on the ark?

If we can eat “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything” then why the claims we can’t eat some of these things in Exodus and Leviticus? This god is so forgetful, losing things, forgetting what he’s said before.

This a prime example of theists making up nonsense thoughtlessly and making things ever worse for their bible’s claims.

“Back of all these superstitions you will find some self-interest. I do not say that this is true in every case, but I do say that if priests had not been fond of mutton, lambs never would have been sacrificed to God. Nothing was ever carried to the temple that the priest could not use, and it always so happened that God wanted what his agents liked. Now, I will not say that all priests have been priests “for revenue only,” but I must say that the history of the world tends to show that the sacerdotal class prefer revenue without religion to religion without revenue.” – Robert Ingersoll (lots more excellent quotes here for those who don’t think atheists used to be as feistyt as they are now)

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – oh the arguments over imaginary friends

This blog is quite bemusing.   Abrahamists are after each other on whose version of their god is right: https://bloggingtheology.com/2019/09/02/islam-jack-chick-and-the-battle-for-souls-your-best-life

It does come down to “My imaginary god is the right one. No, mine is! Your holy book is contradictory. No, yours is.”

The blog is a great example of how theists use the same arguments and utterly ignore that they are attacking the same arguments they use when presented by an opposing theist.

Now, to get that taste out of your virtual mouth, here’s a great interview between Mike Shermer and Phil Zuckerman about  Phil’s new book,  What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion is not necessary for living an ethical life.

 

 

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Addressing Christian spam nonsense.

I felt like a long post today, sitting here in the air conditioning.  If you’ve been reading my posts, you’ll have seen most if not all of this before.  Move on and watch part of one of my favorite cartoon movies Rock and Rule: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR-Z92eXVoo

Occasionally, my spam filter catches some lazy Christian spam.  The below is that (in italics) and what my responses to such nonsense.

In December of 2017, Donald Trump made history by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Why is this big news? Because by this the Jewish people of Israel are now able to press forward in bringing about the Third Temple prophesied in the Bible.

Funny how the Israelis don’t seem to be interested at all in what evangelical Christians want.

Jewish Rabbis have publicly announced that their Messiah will be revealed in the coming years who will be a leader and spiritual guide to all nations, gathering all religions under the worship of one God.

Of course, this is simply nonsense. Their messiah isn’t the Christian one. And they claimed this would happen a couple of thousand years ago too, and it hasn’t happened yet.

Biblical prophecy tells us that this Jewish Messiah who will take the stage will be the antichrist “who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). For a time he will bring about a false peace, but “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (Matthew 24:15)…then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be” (Matthew 24:21).

Ah, here we go, the usual Christian claims that anyone but them doesn’t have the truth and are evil. It again shows that any concern that a conservative Christian has for Israel is completely selfish and the sadistic hope that millions are murdered. How pathetic…. Again.

More importantly, the power that runs the world wants to put a RFID microchip in our body making us total slaves to them. This chip matches perfectly with the Mark of the Beast in the Bible, more specifically in Revelation 13:16-18:

“He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

Now we have claims that RFID tags are now the “number of the beast”. Darn, I thought that was social security numbers, or bar codes on potato chips, serial numbers on currency or whatever failed claims that Christians have made over the years. Continue reading “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Addressing Christian spam nonsense.”

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Exodus redux

yes, there are indeed cruxifix chocolate molds and plague finger puppets. Yay, dead people! Yeesh.

Lest anyone think that I have only issues with Christianity, here is the link to the first part of my Exodus series.  I look at the strange story of the exodus in the bible.

Passover is based on the idea of putting blood on doorways to avoid being killed by the angel of a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient being.  It needs blood to figure this out.  It is also based on the idea that it is moral and okay for this god to murder people who had no choice in the matter, over the actions of their god-king, which was forced into the issue by this god.

Here are also a couple of good blog articles by my friend John:

https://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/kadesh-barnea-gaza-the-exodus/

https://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/how-we-know-the-pentateurch-is-historical-fiction-11/

and one of my favorite posts of my own, just how many quail showed up: https://clubschadenfreude.com/2017/01/18/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-960000-tons-of-what/

 

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a gathering of thoughts about various recent events.

and this is the fellow that some atheists claim is a nice guy
and this is the fellow that some atheists claim is a nice guy

Vermin-in-Chief Ray Comfort, the fellow who tried to get atheists to take his book by giving out food gift certificates and was shamed in to giving said certificates to people who need food (still $7,000 unaccounted for), wants to tell his followers to tell the Jewish people that they are so very “angry” about the bomb threats and defacement of their cemeteries but hey, let me tell you about Jesus.”

Directly from the email that Living Waters sent out: “You can use these sick acts as an excuse to extend some extra love to the Jewish people in your life. With sensitivity and empathy, tell them how angry you were to hear of it. Lead the conversation into the Jewish Messiah who died on the cross, in fulfillment of the Holy Scriptures prophecies.”

Because it’s always good for Christians to use things to spread their nonsense and tell Jews, “Hey, you’re going to hell, but a shame about those tombstones.”

The Kellyanne Conway on the couch thing? Can you imagine on what the GOTP would have said if FLOTUS Obama would have done that?   We had enough comparisons of her to an ape from the usual deplorables. I wonder, does Conway know to take her shoes off before she climbs on the furniture? I think I learned that before kindergarten. Oh, it seems that some dickhead Democrat male made some comment about a woman kneeling. Jackasses on all sides, it seems.

Trump now wants to blame anyone and everyone for the failed military operation in Yemen, but simultaneously wants to claim it recovered very good intelligence, and now they have what appears to be a snipe hunt going on, with claims of “hundreds” of names that they are supposedly tracking down that they supposedly found during the raid. The vet who sits in the same room with me wonders about someone who blames the soldiers for something he approved over dinner and then ignored while it was going on.

Witches supposedly tried to cast a spell on Trump. Alas, no more effect than a prayer. Now where are those “real” spells so many Christian twits claimed that I would learn from playing Dungeons and Dragons?

Good article on what the EPA has done for the US, and how fucking stupid it is to think to dismantle it from Popular Science.

Good article on abiogenesis and how the RNA world model might not be correct.

All for today.  If you are a new reader or old, please do visit the Boss’s Office to see my stance on how I allow comments.  Bring your facts with you if you care to discuss things with me.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – wannabee theocrats marching in DC today

what pro-control people want women to believe
what pro-control people want women to believe

Today there is a “march for life” in Washington, DC. There are a lot of women there, who insist that they are feminists. There may be some men who also would claim this, since being a feminist isn’t limited by sex. They all declare that they are “for life”, aka against abortion and birth control.

These people want to control others, and that is all they want to do. They want to tell women that they can’t. They can’t make their own decisions. They can’t believe what they want. They can’t be trusted to be intelligent enough to know what they want. They aren’t feminists, they are wolves in sheeps clothing. Feminism isn’t about telling a woman “no”. It’s about knowing that a woman can make her own decisions and that supporting women is important.

These wannabee theocrats demand that their opinion become law, that no one may choose to disagree with them. They want women to be punished for daring to make their own decisions and not obeying them. They claim that women need their help because of a myth with a talking snake. Most, if not all of them, want their particular version of one religion to be the law of the land, conservative Christianity. Of course, they can’t agree on which version of Christianity they want. They may insist that each other is doing to hell for accepting the Pope, for not accepting the Pope, for being baptized in one way or another, being divorced or not divorced, but they are harnessed in the same yoke for this one reason, in their pure hypocrisy.

They want to claim that they are for life, but they are against anything that would help the children that they wish forced on others to live. They are for punishment and obedience. They support the murder and terrorism of those who believe different than they do. They want no assistance be given to assure that these children have healthy food and a safe home. They want to keep families from having affordable health insurance. They want no assistance given to assure that these children have a good education, no matter if they are wealthy or poor . They want none but their religion taught to these children and they want only the families they approve of to take care of these children. They depend on lying to women to convince them to have children, intentionally misleading women by how they name their services. After the uterus is vacated, they are not interested.

Caring for another isn’t important at all, only forcing a woman to bear a child she cannot support, either financially or emotionally. They pretend that their churches will help these women but every shelter everywhere is desperate for money despite that there are pages upon pages of churches and other religious organizations in the phone book. They haven’t taken care of these families so far, so why should anyone believe that they will now?

These conservative Christians prate that this god would never give a woman more than she could handle, but they turn their heads when these women harm or kill themselves and their children because they could not handle those things, no matter how much they prayed and others prayed for them. They needed real help and that real help requires that people support them through real resources, resources payed by taxes and given to everyone, not just people who agree with the taxpayers or obey the rules of a religion that has no more evidence that it is true than any other religion.

These people want to take over the government, and force their religion on everyone. For all of their false claims of being unable to make their own choices, they do their best to remove the ability to choose from others. For all of their false claims of being pro-life, they do their best to ensure that those lives suffer as much as possible.

Hypocrisy personified, when this woman thinks she is being silenced and she’s walking down streets in the nation’s capital saying  exactly what she wants.

hypocrite