So what does this say? The atheists who posted this are either aware of this or unaware. If they are aware they they are not above manipulating people to get them to question their beliefs. If they are unaware well…it means they are ignorant and while that isn’t up there with the slack-jawed, gun-toting theists you see on the news and such it isn’t much of an shining example of reason and introspection either.

P.S. I know I’m a bit behind, I’m just catching up on my RSS feeds.

People who need religious beliefs to control their behavior to the extent that they would otherwise be committing criminal acts are dangerous, period. At any given time, the right sermon or dream or voice in their head could convince them that they should go ahead and murder someone for religious reasons anyway.

Bus ads encouraging people to relax and drop the religious guilt are helping to cheer people up during a pretty miserable time, and they certainly aren’t any more “offensive” than various religious ads. When government starts worrying about the delicate sensibilities of the masses instead of what’s just and lawful, you’ve got a recipe for disaster.

calls on Ministers responsible for public transport and advertising media to investigate this matter and to seek to remove these religiously offensive and morally unhelpful advertisements.

Ain’t it ironic how these same Christians accuse us of “attempting to silence the public expression of religion?”

and recommends to Christian groups considering alternative advertising approaches to There’s Probably No God to counter it with the simple addition of But What If There Is?

ah, good old Pascal’s Wager. These people are hilarious. Why am I not laughing though?

‘Rat Bastard’- it was not the software, it was your brain that was the problem.

geru refers to that well known academic discipline ‘sciency logic stuff’. Well, what he says, if it was intended as some form of informal logical argument, fails. Of course, if it is intended as the ramblings of a scramble brained atheist, then I suppose it succeeds, in that it confirms the originator’s brain scrambled state.

News for ‘Gribblethebrainless’ – Ian Paisley is not a priest. He hates priests.

As a piece of marketing the atheist buses are hilarious. So, all those crimes were committed by people who were not even sure that God does not exist. So, why, then, did they murder tens of millions of people?

And look who it is making themselves look silly. A UKIP member and a DUC member.

For those in the US, the UKIP has one member of parliament (Bob Spink) and is pretty much a nativist, right wing, anti euro party. As a measure of their mood, take note that Robert Kilroy-Silk (he of the awful Jerry Springer-esque show) was one of their leading lights at one point.

As for the DUC, it was founded by an insane priest named Ian Paisley, a conspiracy theorist, bigot, racist and generally nasty character. It has very strong links with various prostetant churches, particularly in Northern Ireland (where it is the largest political party) especially that of Ian Paisley. Not too long ago they made themselves look silly when they admitted that teaching creationism and intelligent design did not conflict with their education plans, this after one of their MPs wanted to ensure that children that gave religious based (i.e. wrong) answers in exams were not penalized for them.

Its vaguely re-assuring that the only two to have mentioned it so far are both from parties with less than glowing reputations. Hopefully this will only serve to make them look sillier than they already are.

I do think a quick letter to both MPs and my own is in order though. Can’t really rant on a blog about it if i’m not willing to let them know directly.

As I guess was the case with our favorite Evangelist-Christian/YEC-Gone-Criminal Kent Hovind. The Wikipedia entry on Hovind’s sentencing quotes Hovind making the following comment on his sentence:

“If it’s just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach.”

Doesn’t that just perfectly symbolize the whole problem of the Christian mindset?

“Why should I feel bad or change my behavior, when there’s always someone else who’ll bear the guilt and the consequences for me? See, he’s taking all the blame, so stop hassling me, this no longer concerns me in no way.”

This really is the Christian moral code in practice, which is pretty much the opposite of the common moral principles we have established in western democracies. And still they claim this is supposed to be the root of all morality in western societies…

Anyway it is an Early Day Motion and not legislation. This is really a way for an MP to voice an issue to make it public. What should now happen if they want to pursue it as law is that this matter goes before committee for investigation, they write up the law, amend it and it is then presented for discussion in the House of Commons. All discussions in the Commons are open to the public so the press will love any kind of drama raised by a forthright religionist.

The Commons is made up of representatives of the people so we have all religions and none openly working in Parliament. There is no reason for them to hide their faith either because we have no separation clause in our non-existent constitution. It should raise a lot of publicity.

Even if it gets through the Commons the House of Lords will almost certainly reject it on the grounds that it breeches the right to free speech in European Law. Add the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury sits in the Lords and is welcoming of the posters to encourage dialogue and debate and the law is doomed.

Our system is not the simplest and any errors are entirely mine.