Thursday, October 11, 2012

Take the National Quiz of Shame

The past week has been rife with some interesting political developments. I’m not talking about the presidential election necessarily, but statements and proposals from politicians around the nation that should give thinking people pause.

Unfortunately, much as devout Christians will hang tight to their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, so too will some otherwise thinking people turn a blind eye, or deny, or just dismiss as a one off the madness that spews from the mouths of religious fanatic politicians. 

So, I offer the following short quiz to my readers to prompt some introspection and aid some of their friends and relatives in assessing their own readiness to ride the band wagon of the  insanely religious.  Get ready, this won’t be pretty:

1.  Name the Gubernatorial candidate and his party, who has declared his support for  introducing Creationism into his state’s public schools if elected, and will refuse all federal aid for education for his state.

2.  Name the state representative & his party who in the past two years introduced a bill that would require Creationism be discussed in science classes; and who supported a religious test for public school science teachers to keep atheist teachers out of the class room.

3. Name the state representative candidate & his party who declared that rebellious children should be put to death, per the Old Testament directive.

4. Name the state rep and his party, who proclaimed that slavery was “a blessing” to black people. And from the same state, the representative who proclaimed slavery couldn’t have been so bad since Jesus and Paul never condemned it.

5. Name the Congressman and his party who sits on the Science Committee who announced that evolutionary theory is “a lie from the pit of hell.” He also declared manmade global warming a conspiracy by certain members of the scientific community.

6. Name the pro-life, family values congressman and medical doctor, and his party, who opposes abortion even to save the life of the mother, but who insisted his mistress have an abortion to “save his marriage.”.

7. Name the ex-president and his party who proclaimed atheists “... aren’t patriots and maybe not even be Americans.”

8. Name the state representative and his party that has called for the death of homosexuals.

9 Name the national candidate and his party who believes that god and his wives lives on the planet Kolob;  wears special underwear that protects him from evil;  will himself someday be a god of his own planet; and who believes almost half the nation’s citizens are un-motivated self declared victims entitled to free food and free everything.
10. What do each of these politicians have in common?

1. Ovid Lamontagne  (R- New Hampshire) Catholic
2.Gary Hopper (R- Weare, New Hampshire) Protestant
3.Charles Fuqua (R – Arkansas) Baptist 
4 Jon Hubbard (R- Arkansas) Baptist; and Loy Mauch (R- Arkansas) Baptist
5 Paul Broun (R- Georgia) Southern Baptist
6 Scott DesJarlais (R- Tennessee) Episcopalian
7 George H.W. Bush ( R )  Episcopalian
8 Rep. Andy Gipson (R-Mississippi)  Christian
9 Willard “Mitt” Romney ( R ) Mormon
10. They are all Republicans and Christians, and represent only a very few of the many GOP politicians who share their perspectives.

 I’m sure you were able to answer a few of these correctly. Certainly you could have guessed the party affiliations.  But your score isn’t important. What’s important is your answer to the final two part question... and here it is:

11: A) How can any thinking person ignore these realities, which are just the tip of the madness iceberg, and cast their vote for the party that virtually exclusively  attracts this kind of madness, this degree of incivility, these expressions of hate, hypocrisy and religious fanaticism that is counter to everything America stands for...then goes so far as to fund those campaigns and candidates?
11: B) How can any person of reason and reality vote for a party that attracts like a magnet the support of the least educated, most religiously deluded, homo-phobics, misogynists, and racists - in the hopes that this party has a magic bullet that will lift this nation magically out of its financial doldrums?

11:A&B-  Because some unholy blend of self interest, cognitive dissonance, denial, and racism is not exclusively the purview of ignorant religious fanatics.  And that’s the real national shame.

My guess is you got that last one right   


Thesauros said...

That's an interesting slogan on the T, because I remember Dawkins himself saying that unrestrained atheism would always lead to fascism.

Fascism is almost as good a word as Hitler when it comes to finding something good to throw at your enemies. That's why Dawkins' quote makes it all the more believable since he's describing a danger that is inherent in his own version of reality.

Dromedary Hump said...

Thesauros.. I am unaware of any such statement from Dawkins vis-a-vis atheism and fascism. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to post the quote and original source here, especially since it is the basis for your comment.

As for the t-shirt quote: It is popularly attributed to Sinclair Lewis but in fact, it cannot be sourced to anything he wrote. "It can't happen here" (1935) is cited, but it's not in the book.

It has however become a rallying cry for those who see the far right Xtian attacks (justified by the bible) on gays, women's rights, documented history, individual freedoms as a whole, and our educational system. And using religion to justify war.

I am unaware of an atheists calling for the imprisonment, in concentration camps, of gays or their extinction. It seems to be a Xtian (and muslim) fanatic precept. If that is not an example based on early 20th century Fascism, then I don't know what is.

If you don't see the connection between US Christian fanatic's desire to impose ancient religious precepts on 21st century reality, but CAN see the fascist like actions of a Taliban controlled Afghanistan or their impact on Pakistan, then perhaps it's because you yourself are a tad too close to what that slogan implies.

Looking forward to your citing the documented source and exact "Dawkins quote."

Olivier said...


Once again, people take a piece of quote and read what they want into it. It took me a little while to find out about the quote for Dawkins and it seems to be from an interview in a german speaking newspaper (
Some website translated it (my german is a bit rusty but the translation seems accurate):

"Dawkins: No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am an passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state."

So here you go. For people who bother to check the whole quote, you realize that it doesn't mean what Thesauros implied. Dawkins is simply advocating against social darwinism (which incidently has nothing to do with the theory of evolution). And it's got nothing to do with atheism.

It's funny how many times I've been able to debunk conservative/religious/conspiracist arguments just by spending 10 mins on the internet.... It says a lot about the way they fact-check their ideas.

Dromedary Hump said...


Excellent, thanks. Nicely researched.

Yes, to the religiously infirm "Darwin-ism" (AKA social darwinism) tranlates to atheism; or they will reinvent quotes to fit their agenda; and/or they'll avoid research to confirm their postulation (often drawn from similarly dishonest apologetics sites intended to mislead the sheep) lest they be shown to be in error.

The mistake this Xtian commentor made was assuming a thinking person accepts at face anything that is thrown at them. He confuses us with the unthinking faithful to whom belief needs no evidence, no visible means of support, and certainly no honesty.

The only questions here are:
1. whether Thesauros knew his reference was incorrect or if he is just another duped sheep. and
2. Now that you've provided the correct reference, will he continue to inappropriately apply the term atheism for Darwinism and continue to attempt to mislead.
I wonder if we'll ever find out. I doubt it.

Again, Thanks...and well done.

Thesauros said...

“Perhaps you'd be kind enough. . ."

It's got nothing to do with kindness. It's just a vague memory recall. It's something I heard a few years ago. I think it was part of an interview, but no source, no citation. So now you have a good excuse to ignore it – yes?

Ooops, I see Oliver did the work. Yes, that's the quote. Thank you Oliver. Personally, I wouldn't have bothered.
If you don't see the connection between US Christian fanatic's”

what percentage of U.S. Christians do you think make up this dangerous fanatical force? I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm just wondering what your picture of it is.

“it's because you yourself are a tad too close to what that slogan implies.”

Ya, that's probably what it is.

Dromedary Hump said...

Thesauros said:
"Personally I wouldn't have bothered." ??

Yep, that's exactly what I said above as typical of xtian defenders of the faith: you spew falsehood, proffer nonsense, then don't bother to see if your intellect and credibility are at risk. So much for religious integrity and intellect. My guess is it won't stop you from falsely offering Dawkins' quote again.

I rest my case.

As to your question:
I'd say 25%+/- of the Christians in this country make up the far right religious Xtian Taliban faction. Those who want to see the Wall of Sepration torn down; who call this a Xtian Nation; who want creationism taught as science; who see no issue with Xtian prayer in school or forcing their beliefs on others; who fear the wrath of god if gays are allowed to be happily married, and women are alowed to manage their own womb. etc.

Then another 50%+/- of Xtians don't give a shit either way... or are moderate in both their religious intensity and use of religion in forming their political position.

Finally 25%+/- are liberal Christians who have learned how to accomodate a degree of reality and modernity with their religious fable; see scripture as man made, discounting much of it as parable; and rejecting the intolerance, misogyny, biblically inspired hatred and idiocy of the conservative nutters.

This is my opinion based on years of observation and interaction with religionists. I have no documentation, as opinion needs none..only those things proffered as fact.

Thesauros said...

My intellect is at risk? My intellect? Hmmm

Thanks for the breakdown on the Christian Taliban. I don't live in the States but if you're correct, if 25% is more than just an opinion, you have reason for concern.

Oh, and as for opinions? It's my opinion that a Darwinist state would be an atheist state. And no, I won't make the same mistake regarding the Dawkins quote.

Dromedary Hump said...

"Intellect" as in "intellectual honesty", or respect for your "degree of intellect." Yes, take it either way.

Social Darwinism has zero to do with atheism. But, I don't expect you to know or understand this, as you seem to have originally confused the two so as to imply they were synonymous.

as for "Darwinist state"...LOL. Of course you'd perceive such a "state" as atheistic. No one has ever accused religionists such as yourself as being other than guided by faith in the unsupportable, or having firm belief in the irrational.

Dromedary Hump said...

BTW..the closest thing we have in history relative to internalization and practice of social darwinism, elimination of the "least fit," is the Third Reich. Joseph Mengele, and Adolph Hitler both being Catholics.

Does that mean that the Vatican is a likely "Darwinist State" candidate? No. It means that your proposition lacks any historical or factual basis.

Jim Hudlow said...

Hump...excellent replies to a perfect example of ignorance assuming knowledge while insisting on remaining ignorant by doing no personal research of his own claims. This one should go in your next book.

Dromedary Hump said...

TY Jim. and yes, good idea. ;)

Anonymous Bob said...

Excellent quiz Hump. May I copy and paste it referencing your link? I fear many would ignore if I just shared your webpage.

Dromedary Hump said...

Anon my guest. and thanks.

Thesauros said...

I think that your comment about Hitler being a Catholic and my misquote of Dawkins makes us even. Both very poorly researched.

Tell me, if I lost my faith and became an atheist, could I look forward to becoming as nice and respectful a person as you?

carissa said...

That Dawkins quote may be from the interview he did with Wendy Wright (of the Concerned Women for America) for his series on Darwin (BBC: The Genius of Charles Darwin). You need the full context of the interview to understand what he means. Basically, she was accusing any proponent of evolution as being social Darwinists, which Dawkins vehemently rejected in the interview.

Dromedary Hump said...

Thesauros> It wouldn't be too hard for you to Google "Hitler Religion" or "Mengele Religion". would be easier than clicking on oneof your Xtian apologetics websites.

It would take you a tad longer to buy and read Mein Kampf and read Hitler's own words of how he was doing the Lord's work.

But, much as Creationists deny evolutionary theory evidence from every scientific discipline, there is no convincing those who trust faith over fact. If it doesn't support the religious' agenda, the data is nullified. I understand.

No. Likely accepting the reality there is no god would not make you more nicer or more respectful. It would however make you more intlligent and open to reason and reality. It may even make you impatient and disgusted with those to whom reality is an anathema.

Carissa...thanks. Olivier provided the source of the religionists misstatement. See above.

Laci The Dog said...

I updated the quote on the T-shirt to add a gun to the mix. Got to have all the wedge issues in there!

The problem is that religion has been very good at preventing knowledge and change: from whether the earth rotates around the sun to climate change.

Rabbit51 said...

Far-Right Wing Religious zealots will fill a page on why they are right, and the rest of the free thinking, intelligent, science -backed, people of logic and reason are wrong, blah, blah, blah.

Thesauros said...

"read Hitler's own words"

And you, no doubt, take Adolf Hitler at his word because he is an example of mental stability.

Dromedary Hump said...

Rabbit.. absolutely, as will the religious deny that religious people do horrible things. Or refuse to educate themselves lest it diminish their faith, or reveal the absurdity of faith as a moral guide.

Thesauros: theonly reason I am now allowing your comments to appear is because they reinforce my observations about you in particular, and religionists in general.

All of Hitlers speeches are either recorded or transcribed. His words leave little room for doubt as to his religious justification for the genocide against Jews... after all, if not for Xtianity and it's demonetization of Jews there would be virtually no anti-Antisemitism.

But no matter, every accredited historian (i.e. not Xtian religious revisionsits, or the Pope) clearly show hitler as having been raised Catholic, went to a Catholic school, received the sacraments, never denounced his Catholicism, and was never excommunicated by the life or posthumously (what a surprise). It takes so little to research this, yet you insist on exemplifying the religious fool who avoids research and denies fact, just as I pegged you for from the start. Remarkable.

As for mental stability as a prerequisite in assessing ones religious allegiance:
Sane or insane hardly establishes whether one is a believer or not. I take Stalin at his word that he was an atheist... and he was unstable as a hatter. I take Jim Jones at his word that he was a Christian, and he murdered his entire flock. I accept that David Koresh thought he was a messiah, and his followers followed him to death. Millions of Mormons take the word of a 19th century Charlatan and womanizer, and convicted horse thief that he found golden tablets and wants them to wear magic underwear...and yet they are deemed to be reasonably stable folk on the whole. So now what?

Why you need to assess Hitler's mental stability in order to accept his Catholic background, or his recorded (tape and transcript) words of fulfilling Christian pogroms and persecution (which it practiced for centuries) is simply attributable to your stupidity and denial. My guess is you're a Catholic. What a surprise.

Now..the next time you offer a comment here, make sure it has a scintilla of reason, logic, fact, or if an opinion on history, that it's predicated on research and evaluation of fact, and not on your feelings or religiously driven prejudices. Otherwise, your last post is shown above.

Your amusement factor has run its course.

Anonymous said...

Hump, seems Thesauros has/is lost and he's blaming the refs.

Dromedary Hump said...

LOL.. Sounds like it doesn't it? Good call. ;)

Dromedary Hump said...

Hitler's baptismal certificate:

available to anyone with the curiosity and respect for reality to access.

Thesauros said...

What's that like - to live a lie - even before people who probably think you're their friend? To let them think that I've run away, and not responded to your taunts? What's it like to be someone who declares that he doesn't need God in order to be a nice person and then leads a double life? It's sad. A sad spectacle.

Dromedary Hump said...

Posting this so you'd have a forum for your tears: I told you, when you can reply, respond, intelligently to what I posted, and not rely on faith and avoidance; and / or you can provide substantiation for a claim predicated on fact your posts will be permitted. Until then, no... this is not a forum for religious stupidity, denial, and outright mistatements of fact. Go find a religious site that welcomes that kind of stupidity.

Anonymous said...

To live a lie?

Yes, tell us Thesauros:

1) What's that like to live a religious lie?
2) To pressure friends and family and asociates with accepting your religious lie?
3) Running away from the topic at hand?
4) To suffer the Camel's taunts?
5) What's it like to be someone who declares that he needs God in order to be a nice person and then leads a double life?

I agree - a very sad state of affairs for the individual and those around him/her.

- Fastthumbs