Vote for the Bad Faith Award 2009

The Bad Faith Award is given out by New Humanist magazine and it goes to “the person who has made the year’s most outstanding contribution to talking unadulterated (and often destructive) nonsense about matters of religion.”

Last year, the winner was Sarah Palin.

This year’s nominees are certainly worthy… to say the least.

  • Adnan Oktar, aka Harun Yahya
  • Anjem Choudary
  • Anthony Bush
  • The British Chiropractic Association
  • Cormac Murphy O’Connor
  • Dermot Aherne
  • Damian Thompson
  • Pope Benedict XVI
  • Terry Eagleton and Karen Armstrong
  • Tony Blair

If some of the names are unfamiliar to you, there are fuller descriptions on the website.

I cast my vote. Who are you voting for?

  • Brandon

    Definitely Pope Benedict.

  • Sandra S

    Wow, have I not been keeping up? I’ve only heard of Harun Yahya, Karen Armstrong, the pope, Tony Blair, and the Chiropratic Association. Then again I’ve always been terrible with names…

    EDIT: Ok, looking over the descriptions on the website I have confirmed how terrible I am with names. Infact, I know who most of them are. And honestly, my vote is for Tony… I just despise him.

    Yes, I did have the time to read and make up my mind as well as write this within five minutes, stop being so skeptical.

  • http://seculardentist.blogspot.com alopiasmag

    I vote for Harun Haya… or however you wanna spell it. I mean, how can you beat the stupidity of writing a creation bible?

  • http://forumethix-ch.blogspot.com Samia

    It’s the “about matters of religion” bit I have trouble with in deciding who to vote for. I mean, how much adulterated nonsense about religion do these people utter in the first place? Based on this, I’d have to go with either Anjem Choudary, Dermot Aherne, or Tony Blair. Saying anything to the effect that states or authorities should become more religious certainly makes the cut.

    Much as I’d wish to vote for Ratzinger, his unadulterated nonsense was about public health, not religion…

  • http://www.alscotts.blogspot.com Alistair Scott

    Oh brother! This is a really tough vote. They are all utterly god-awful.

    Tony Bliar (sic) is so creepy and insincere that he makes me want to vomit.

    Pope Benedict XVI sits in his palatial ivory tower, dressed in his finery, and tells poor Africans that using condoms will give them AIDS. (Incidentally, why does he use a bulletproof ‘Popemobile’ when travelling? Surely, if he’s God’s chosen representative on Earth, and God is omnipotent, God will protect him.)

    Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor states that atheists are ‘not fully human’ whilst covering up for paedophiles in his church.

    I’m gonna have to think long and hard about the choices here.

  • benjdm

    So many deserving people…I voted for the Ireland blasphemy guy.

  • http://chaoskeptic.blogspot.com Iason Ouabache

    I’m going to have to go with the Pope, but only because Ray Comfort didn’t make the list.

  • http://stereoroid.com/ brian t

    I’d say Dermot Aherne, the twit behind the new Blasphemy laws here in Ireland. A genuinely bone-headed move in a country that is otherwise growing up in the world.

  • ZombieGirl

    Awww this is so hard to choose….
    half my family lives in Turkey, so I naturally feel more connected to that country so am tempted to vote for the man responsible for creating so much anti-evolutionism in Turkey.

    I think I might vote for Chaudary, though I don’t live in the UK. I am not a fan of the Pope either, especially because of the immense power he has.

    I’ll decide between those three. XD

  • Neon Genesis

    What was so bad about Karen Armstrong? She’s certainly more rational than Bill Maher in any case. Anyway, I’d have to go for Tony Blair for trying to organize all the religious people to go after atheists for some bizarre reason.

  • Miko

    Dermot Aherne. I based my vote on actual harm caused, rather than strictly on just speaking nonsense. As such, I wanted to go for the person who most effectively brought about cooperation between various hierarchical oppressive organizations (church, state, corporation, etc.), since together they can do exponentially more harm than any one could do separately.

    Last year, church-state partnership was the obvious threat and so Palin was the obvious choice. With the election of Obama, the church-state (theocracy) partnership has become slightly less of an issue (even if he is giving out more Faith-Based Initiative money than Bush was) due to the growth of the pernicious state-corporation (fascist) partnership. That said, church-state was my deciding factor anyway, based on the nominees (mainly because it’s still very significant on the world stage, even if it’s currently cooled a bit in the U.S.).

    Most of them, while stupid, weren’t posing a systemic threat to society, so I only really considered four:

    4) The British Chiropractic Association: While there are good reasons (regarding natural rights) to have libel laws, the BCA gives a good utilitarian argument as to why society might be better off without them. While “trying to sue” is bad enough due to the intimidation aspects, they didn’t get my vote since so far they haven’t actually been successful.

    3) Tony Blair: Mainly because I don’t like him. His statement “We face an aggressive secular attack from without” is mitigated somewhat by the follow-up “We face the threat of extremism from within.” He’s technically correct that secularism is a threat to religion, but misses both the mechanics of why this is and the fact that that’s a good thing. He’s right that extremist religion is a huge threat. If he becomes president of Europe, he’ll be a threat to reason, but right now he’s just a harmless crank.

    2) Anjem Choudary: Trying to impose Shari’ah in the UK. Scary, but again no credibility beyond the “trying” part.

    1) Dermot Aherne: The winner by virtue of being the only nominee not to have the word “trying” in the description of what they did. Plus, Ireland has always been a fairly libertarian country, so passing a law like this there is much worse than it would be in other parts of the world, since the nation had further to fall.

    It’s the “about matters of religion” bit I have trouble with in deciding who to vote for.

    The criteria listed on the poll page is “contribution to the cause of unreason,” not specifically religion. I’d say that other criteria than religion can and should be considered. Otherwise, the BCA wouldn’t have been a nominee.

  • Miko

    And I agree with Neon Genesis re: Armstrong. She’s there because she wrote a book “mounting what some might call a more sophisticated defence [sic] of religion.” Are they saying it would’ve been okay if only her defense of religion was more sophomoric?

  • Moose

    Da Poop.

    “Vatican Ministry of Health” – my big, fat, hairy A$$.

    Moose

  • Jim

    Hey, where is the “All of the above” option?

  • «bønez_brigade»

    Pope Ratbagz!

  • Gordon

    I went for Dermot Ahearne, but I am biased because it is my country he was ruining with his stupid blasphemy law.

  • Mikko

    voted on adnan oktar

  • Spickey Millane

    For me it’s a tie between Pope Benedict and his ridiculous atheists cause global warming (among the usual idiotic stuff from him) and Tony Blair’s equating peaceful rational minded people with those who think their magic man in the sky wants planes crashed into buildings.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X