Keep Crossing Those Lines

(via The Far Left Side)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • radical4truth .

    Memo from South America – to North America:

    Alas, after 2,000 years of the tyranny of the counterfeit imperialist church ( tied to the ruling classes and now to the Western corporate system) yes — the only voice of sanity comes from the atheist alliance.

    Serves you right! (Just Venting)

    Amusingly, the Atheist coalition is just as broad and as scary as your religious dynasties. And they seem to be enjoying a “revival” of sorts. By feeding off the ignorance that proceeds from your Imperial churches’ desperate and stupid fight against Science. And to maintain its fake, “drive thru” Salvation as well.

    Yes, Creation Science is another of your Imperialist church inventions. (See http://surpriseendings.ca/)

    Because the Imperialist church and the Islamic global genocidal crusade continue to symbolize man’s search for immortality and the mystery of life on this dying Solar System and Universe — then Atheism will continue to enjoy great success and judicial leverage

    This Gay Marriage issue is another Atheist cheese-cake bloggers/media, “anti-backwardness” dreamboat.

    Apart from our (South American) drained resources, your imperialist puppets, our poverty and the Islamic threat looming, we’ve learnt that oppression is always wrong — no matter who the target is. Be it gays, the disabled, women, or writers

    Does that mean that Christians or whosoever should sit by and watch their societies crumble and be shaped by deviant powerbrokers? Should we allow men to marry their grandsons even if they feel no harm is done. Its all about Love, baby. Rights, my a#$.

    Yeah, our kids live here too, pal.

    We must all be free to stand up for the type of rules and moral precepts that we want our children to cherish and to be protected by and from.

    After all, there is no end to the evil that lurks in the hearts of every saint and sinner. To deny that — is to deny the phenomenology of the subjective aspects of criminal behavior.

    When the next powerbrokers draw up plans to allow bestiality and deviant sexual education to be taught in your schools (with the “free thinkers” beating their drums in the background), then you may understand what our forefathers felt— when your counterfeit imperialist church and its corporate arm — and your governments ransacked our societies. (just a friendly historical rant)

    Final word: this may never be published by our “free thinking” friends, but if, as we suspect, not all atheists are afraid of criticism, then please get this my atheist friends:

    Its one thing to convince one’s own heart that the miracle of your life and sentience end here — but its another thing to feverishly convince others to give up the search.

    There is a war on for the “souls” and minds of billions of people out there. Be real sure you know which side of history you’re on? Death seems to be a very long time.

    Just sayin’ …

    Kenneth Persaud

    • WallofSleep

      I don’t even…. what the…

      • Anna

        That about sums up my reaction, LOL.

        • WallofSleep

          I guess we’re just a couple of Imperialist, cheese-cake Islamist genocidal fever bloggers. Or something.

          I did like this bit, though:

          “We must all be free to stand up for the type of rules and moral precepts that we want our children to cherish and to be protected by and from.”

          That one’s a doozy. Should be carved in stone, really.

          • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Tanner B James

            “We must all be free to stand up for the type of rules and moral precepts that we want our children to cherish and to be protected by and from.”

            It’s a copy-pasta from something he wrote here about six months ago.

            • WallofSleep

              I just find it humorous, the notion that there are a set of rules and moral precepts that our children should cherish and be protected by, yet at the same time be protected from.

              You can’t buy that kind of logic at the five and dime. That’s just something you’re born with.

      • http://nomadwarriormonk.blogspot.com/ Cyrus Palmer

        I read the whole thing, and I have no clue what any of it was about. I don’t think anything in that constitutes a coherent thought.

      • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Tanner B James

        FYI: It’s Mabus aka Dennis Markuze, re-incarnated.

        • WallofSleep

          I’ve read about that dude, a ticker that one. I think he is a danger to himself and others. Imagine my relief (as a US citizen) when I learned he was Canadian.

          Odd, though. He’s been pulling this kind of shit since at least 1993, including issuing death threats, and the Canadian police didn’t bother to arrest him until 2011? That’s nearly twenty years. What the fuck, Canada? I thought you guys were cool.

          http://www.sectalk.com/board/public/imported_images/mizamag.net/conan-i-am-disappoint1.jpg

        • baal

          I hope it isn’t Mabus. If it is, he’s violating his parole again.

    • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Tanner B James

      Hi, Dennis “Mabus” Markuze.

      This Gay Marriage issue is another Atheist cheese-cake bloggers/media, “anti-backwardness” dreamboat.

      Get over it already. There are too many sources to quote but it is not just Atheists who are blogging about gay marriage as a matter of fact many moderate christians are blogging in support of gay marriage.

      Its one thing to convince one’s own heart that the miracle of your life and sentience end here — but its another thing to feverishly convince others to give up the search. There is a war on for the “souls” and minds of billions of people out there. Be real sure you know which side of history you’re on? Death seems to be a very long time.

      Yup your are right. But we are not feverishly convincing just feverishly hinting that they need not search any longer. We have always been on the Skeptics side of history, for hundreds of centuries, to be more succinct about 450,000 years of skeptical history. And death does not “seem” to be a long time it just is a long time.

      • radical4truth .

        Just a quick note. I have no idea why you would personally misrepresent my name and attack my character. No, I am from Guyana. And this is the first time I’ve written on this blog based on a tweet link. If you are unable to meet me in the marketplace of ideas, then please do not slander my character. Let’s not make this personal. Just sayin …

        • Guest

          Please if you will post the tweet link. Ever heard of “Gopher” it is a web spider that can search for phrases and sentences written in a document, out on the web and at universities. I use it often. Your comments came up at least once more than you claim.
          http://crossmap.christianpost.com/backgrounds/nailed-to-the-cross-1905
          You are not fooling me with your claim of innocence.

          • radical4truth .

            We are now beginning to launch our work to debunk scientific atheism, Religion, and Creation Science and we are seeking true atheists, Christians and Muslims to take our challenges. It seems that we are wasting our time in this blog dealing with bottom feeders. Goodbye and all the best. http://tinyurl.com/lcg8fea

    • Matt D

      Does this impress anyone besides yourself?

  • WallofSleep

    AKA: “If yew don’t like it, yew can git owt!!!11ty”

  • http://nomadwarriormonk.blogspot.com/ Cyrus Palmer

    Only in this country…

  • Tom

    The biggest flaw of libertarianism/so-called objectivism, in a nutshell. You can always go to the mythical “somewhere else.”

    • Patrick

      Surely this is a flaw of federalism or ‘states’ rights’ rather than libertarianism/objectivism? Aside from abortion where there is considerable difference of opinion, none of the views in the cartoon are libertarian ones.

      • Raising_Rlyeh

        It can be seen as somewhat libertarian in that libertarians feel that you have options. It is the reason that many libertarians oppose anti-discrimination laws. The thought is that you can just choose not to shop or do business with someone who wants to discriminate against you. Then the magical laws of free market capitalism will take hold.

        • Patrick

          I suppose it’s true to that extent, although the cartoon specifically deals with state governments – and I’ve never heard a libertarian advocate for discriminatory (or corrupt) government.

          • Raising_Rlyeh

            They are not advocating for corruption or discrimination, although their statements seem to prove that they are fine with discrimination, but they think that the problems of society would be fixed if government got out of it. They are ok with businesses discriminating against a group of people because they feel that the free market will solve the issue. They think that pretty much everything should be privatized and that their should be as little government as possible. They claim to support states rights which means that even though they don’t think the federal government has a right to ban things it is perfectly ok for a state to ban something because you can always move to another state that allows it. In that way the philosophy is consistent with the political cartoon.

            • Stev84

              Yeah. American libertarians are a special kind of stupid because the only want the federal government to stay out of people’s lives. They are perfectly fine with state governments oppressing people. Or rather they are ok with the government oppressing other people and only care if they are affected themselves.

              • UWIR

                If someone opposes federal power, but supports state power, they are an anti-federalist, not a libertarian.

    • 3lemenope

      Not really sure how any of this has anything to do with libertarianism or objectivism.

      • meekinheritance

        No more than the cartoon has anything to do with atheism. :-/

        • Tobias2772

          I think this cartoon points to a need for rational decision making on any number of issues – which I think is quite closely related to atheism.

  • Opinionated Catholic

    Trying to think what State where Unions are prohibited. Umm Can’t think of one. Also where is there election fraud ? Yeah baby keep crossing those lines. Those lines of sensationalism

    • digitalatheist

      heh.. you obviously don’t live in a so-called “right to work/work at will” state. No.. unions are prohibited but just try to start one where ya work. You’ll be fired as an example… especially when the company rule book says that union will not be allowed.

      • Eli

        Yeah, I have a friend in a “right to work” state who isn’t even allowed to talk about unions without getting fired!

      • Patrick

        If you try to form unions while working for a company which prohibits it, can you really be surprised when they fire you for it?

        • DavidMHart

          No. But you can be justifiably outraged if the government is so opposed to workers’ rights that it lets employers get away with firing people simply for attempting to bargain collectively.

          • Patrick

            Again, where’s the logic in being outraged when the company you joined knowing they forbid collective bargaining, fires you for collective bargaining? I don’t see how allowing the existence of companies who don’t want unions is an affront to workers rights.

            • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

              Because if every company does that (and it’s often the case that they do), choosing to starve instead of taking a job isn’t a realistic option.

            • David S.

              Because bilateral negotiations provide power to both negotiating sides. The whole point of companies not allowing unions is to minimize the bargaining power of their workers.

            • DavidMHart

              “Again, where’s the logic in being outraged when the company you joined
              knowing they forbid collective bargaining, fires you for collective
              bargaining?”

              That’s not what I said. What I said was that one is entitled to be outraged that the government is so contemptuous of workers’ rights as to permit employers to fire people for collective bargaining.

              “I don’t see how allowing the existence of companies who don’t want unions is an affront to workers rights.”

              Then I submit that you aren’t trying very hard. Let’s try a few subsitutions. How about

              “I don’t see how allowing the existence of companies who don’t want homosexuals working for them is an affront to gay rights.”

              Or “I don’t see how allowing the existence of companies who don’t want to pay women the same salary as men is an affront to womens’ rights.”

              Or “I don’t see how allowing the existence of companies who don’t want black people to have any role in management is an affront to race-based civil rights.”

              You may argue, if you like, that people shouldn’t be able to collectively bargain with their employers; that we are better off living in a world where the balance of power is tilted massively towards the wealthy elite, and where you have no legitimate expectation of not being treated like crap and generally exploited by your boss, but if you think that’s the ideal to which we should look, you’d better provide some convincing reasons why. If you can’t, then firing people for what under any other circumstances would be lawful activity (and which the US constitution explicitly guarantees when it comes to a sort of equivalent collective bargaining with the government) is clearly unjust.

            • Tobias2772

              How do workers get their rights without organizing and bargaining collectively ??

            • baal

              “companies who don’t want unions”

              Average wages and benefits are lower in so called ‘right to work’ States and injuries and other negative work place metrics are higher. Why? Unions (which have their flaws) push for workplace safety and other quality of life changes. The empirical evidence is on google.

      • http://www.theartolater.com/ Jeff

        The NRLA still applies in terms of the right to unionize. RTW laws only prohibit people from being forced into the union at their workplace or forced into paying dues even if they’re not part of the union.

        • Tobias2772

          RTW states allow for non-union members to get any increase in benefits that unions negotiate. That is quite a union killer. Many of those states also allow for firing workers without cause – so union organizers are at the boss’ mercy (nonexistant)

          • http://www.theartolater.com/ Jeff

            Regarding the increase in benefits, that’s simply because the NRLA, in its current form, is not entirely compatible with RTW. The Democrats in Congress will never, ever, ever reform the NRLA to conform to state law on the matter, so that’s less a problem of RTW and more one with the continued political power with unions.

            On the latter part, at-will employment exists even in places without RTW and is a separate issue. If part of the union contract is to eliminate the at-will employment in that specific shop, that’s still doable, and the NLRA still does not allow employers to use union activity as an at-will firing.

            • Tobias2772

              They don’t have to use union activity as the reason for firing. They don’t need a reason.
              I, for one, think that workers should be able to organize into unions, and that those unions should be as powerful as their numbers allow them to be. Please explain to me any other way that workers are not reduced to the mercy of their employers who will pay them as little as they can get away with in order to increase their profits. The only way to counterbalance the power of the greater money (and influence) of the owners is to allow the greater number of the workers to organize and collectively bargain.

      • UWIR

        It’s illegal to fire people for trying to start a union, regardless of what state you live in. So if your company follows the law, you won’t be fired, even if you live in a RTW state. If your company doesn’t follow the law, then how are state laws at all relevant? Your post is nonsense.

        • digitalatheist

          As a hypothesis, you are correct. However, being a RTW/At will state, the law here states that an employer can dismiss any one at any time for any reason, or no reason at all. And with the recent SCOTUS rulings of the past week, employees now have even less recourse to compensation.

          • UWIR

            Your multiple dangling modifiers are rather annoying. And you completely failed to actually address my post. Your statement that “the law here states that an employer can dismiss any one at any time for any reason” is flat-out false. There is a long list of bases for which a firing would be illegal, and joining a union is one of them.

    • Carmelita Spats

      The only sensationalism comes from a group of people who produce little video clips claiming that the birth control pill kills children…It’s not just sensationalism, it’s gut busting hilarious…From your Church to our bleeding ears, I give you the Madness of Catholic:

      http://www.thepillkills.com/pillkillsbabies.php

    • Tobias2772

      OC troll,

      I think the fair election part refers to states which have disenfranchised a number of their voters with restrictive registration laws – ostensibly to halt the voter fraud which (you admit) does not exist.

  • Birdie1986

    The scary thing is that I have a conservative African-American friend who is married to a white person who said that she would just move to another state if our state made interracial marriage illegal. This was in the context of my not understanding how she could be against same-sex marriage (she voted against it), and her not understanding why same sex couples were trying to change the laws. She says if it’s the law of the state, they should just move to another state, and she said she’d do the same if interracial marriage was illegal, rather than trying to change the law. I just don’t get it.

  • DougI

    If these small government Republicans make our government any smaller we won’t have any freedoms left.

  • Garret Shane Brown

    I love it. Civil rights aren’t for the states to decide, we own our damn rights.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Harrison/23417637 Michael Harrison

    I read through the archives of this guy. Dunno if he feels this way anymore, but apparently he was at one point a 9/11 Truther. (http://www.farleftside.com/2008/3-3-08.html, http://www.farleftside.com/2008/5-19-08.html)

    Granted, most likely everyone’s got a crazy viewpoint on something. But at what point does eccentricity cross over into nuttery?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X