Tuesday, April 28, 2009

So what do the fundies think of liberals?

Asides from hating us, I mean. If you're like me and enjoy the comedy gold that resides in Conservapedia (did you know that Barack HUSSEIN Obama was both an Muslim and an atheist? You will after reading our fallacy-proof journalism!), you may have seen their checklist to spot a liberal.
A liberal is someone who rejects logical
7 words in, and already my irony meter's been blown.
and biblical standards,
Except for all those liberal Christians.
often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.
OK, we've had a jolly laugh at conservapedia's perception of us. But now onto the checklist.
A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices.
- Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion
Yes, because there shouldn't be a correlation between a woman's wealth and her right to privacy.
- Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events
Well, it is unconstitutional.
- Support for gun control
Quite right. So far, con'pedia is actually doing quite well in describing our positions.
- Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[1]
Again, liberals usually see sexual rights as an extension of the rights to free speech, press and privacy.
- Income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
Yup, that's us! This is getting rather boring-where is the craziness usually associated with con'pedia?
- Government-rationed medical care, such as Universal Health Care
- Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education
I honestly can't see how anybody could be against those above ideas. A person's right to decent health care and a child's right to a adequate education should not be based on wealth. It's compassion 101. Also, see here for education specifically.
- The denial of inherent gender differences
Ladies and gentlemen, we have just entered Jebus County, Texas. Above, you will see the farmers constructing a strawman. Moving on, we will a wormhole that will take us to the 1950's.
- Insisting that men and women have the same access to jobs in the military
And that concludes our brief trip through Jebus County. Breathe deeply while you can; the bus will be U-turning soon and we will only briefly see some sanity.
- Legalized same-sex marriage
- Implementation of affirmative action
- Political correctness
-Support of labor unions
I hope you enjoyed the brief respite from fundieism. Returning through Jebus County, you will see below that the farmers have constructed their strawman, and are currently filling it with all excerpts of "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" they've removed from their Bibles.
- Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching abstinence from sex.[2]
If you check your field maps, you will see the truth. Moving on, we will see Southern lawyers trying to relegalise slavery and strip women of property.
- A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
Thus concludes our field trip through Jebus County. We will return soon, though, so tell your friends about it. Finally, we will take a trip through a moderately Blue Texan street.
- Government programs to rehabilitate criminals
- Abolition of the death penalty
- Environmentalism[3]
Disarmament treaties
- Globalism
- Opposition to an
interventionalist [sic] American foreign policy [4]
- Opposition to full private property rights[5]
- Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
- In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that
liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.
- Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act
...with one exception.
Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).
Weird-I've only ever heard Obama being referred to as "Senator," "Democrat Nominee," "Presumptive Nominee," "Presidential Candidate," "President-elect," and "President." Still, I shouldn't be surprised.

This is also my 20th post that relates to fundies. We seem to exist in a symbiotic relationship: they need us (by 'us' I mean 'liberals') to generate anti-family, pro-sodomy, feminazi outrage that will fill their coffers, and I need them because otherwise my blog would feature little else but digital tumbleweeds. Sick, really.

Friday, April 24, 2009


(hat tip to comic genius Bill Watterson for the title)

Some blogs have pictures of house kittehs...but only here do we see tigers! Below, from left to right, are the snowy tiger, the white, the golden tabby, and a normal tiger. Personally, the swimming and snow-fighting ones are my favourites.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Crazy righty gets it right for a change

From Leon 'What is it with Lefties and their mummies?' Bertrand's ironically named blog of reason.

Political correctness in the UK has reached stifling and epidemic proportions:

BRITAIN appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state. As a sometime teacher of political science and international law, I do not use the term totalitarian loosely.

There are no concentration camps or gulags but there are thought police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.

Nikolai Bukharin claimed one of the Bolshevik Revolution's principal tasks was "to alter people's actual psychology". Britain is not Bolshevik, but a campaign to alter people's psychology and create a new Homo britannicus is under way without even a fig leaf of disguise.

The Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will criminalise politically incorrect jokes, with a maximum punishment of up to seven years' prison. The House of Lords tried to insert a free-speech amendment, but Justice Secretary Jack Straw knocked it out.
You know what? That freaks the bejeezus out of me. The idea that people might be so much as fined for telling a tastless joke is genuinely authoritarian. That being said, I have know idea just how accurate the Australian is in reporting this. However, if UK Labor plans on implementing anything like what the Oz is describing, then it may be only a matter of time before the ALP tries it as well.* Heck, after the internet filter, they'll try anything.

This of course means that civil liberties are under attack from both the hard Left and hard Right. The LPA introduced those anti-terrorism laws which have given far greater powers to police and authorities (stripping suspected criminals of their rights in the process), and now free speech is being constrained by those British softcocks. Still, when it comes to the Brits, I shouldn't be too surprised.

Hence, I would like to share some of my favourite politically incorrect jokes, at least before that's censored as well. Firstly, women.

What is the difference between a battery and a woman?
A battery has a positive side.

What have you done wrong when you wife comes out of the kitchen and starts nagging you?
Made the chain too long.

Why don't women wear watches?
There's a clock on the stove.

Why don't women need drivers licenses?
There is no road between the bedroom and the kitchen.

Wanna hear a funny joke?
Women's rights.

What if God's a woman?
Not only am I going to hell, I'll never know why.
Q: How can you tell a Jewish house?

Next up, Jews.

Q: What's a way you can tell a Jewish house?
A: Toilet paper on the clothesline.

Q: What's another way you can you tell a Jewish house?

A: Padlocks on the rubbish bins.

Q: Why did the Jews wander in the desert for forty years?
A: Because someone dropped a twenty-cent piece.

Q: What's a Jewish dilemma?
A: Free ham.

A rabbi, a priest, and a minister were having a discussion as to how they divided up the collection plate.
The minister explained that he drew a circle on the ground, tossed the collection in the air, and that all the money that landed in the circle was for God (to use for the parish) and all that landed outside was for himself (as living expenses).
The priest said that his system was similar: He just drew a straight line, tossed the money up, and that what landed on one side was for God and the church, and that what landed on the other side was for himself.
The rabbi admitted that his system worked along somewhat the same line: "I just toss the plate up in the air," he explained, "and anything God can catch he can have, while I simply take what's left."

This Black guy was walking down 125th Street, kicking rubbish out of his way, when he spotted something that gleamed strangely. It turned out to be an oddly shaped brass bottle. When he rubbed it, a Jewish genie appeared.
"I'll give you two wishes" intoned the genie (not the usual three wishes; after all, it is a Jewish genie).
"Far out" says the Black guy, "First, I'm sick of being Black - I wanna be White, uptight and out-of-sight. Second, seein' how I love having women hanging around me all the time - I wanna to be surrounded by sweet, warm pussy".
So the genie turned him into a tampon.
The moral of the story? You don't get anything from a Jew without strings being attached.

Israel Moses, living in New York, married a Black woman. One day their boy came home from school very disturbed. "What's the matter, son?", asked Israel. "Am I a Black or a Jew?" "What's the problem?", asked his father, "You can be both". "No," said his son, "you see, a boy at school has got a radio he's selling for five dollars, and I don't know whether to bargain with him or to mug him!"

And with that, we shift to African-American jokes.

Q: Why do Blacks always have sex on the brain?
A: Because they've got pubic hair on their heads.

Q: How do you stop little Black kids from jumping up and down on your bed?
A: Put "Velcro" on your ceiling.

Q: Why are the palms of Black people's hands white?
A: Because they were all leaned up against cop cars when God spray-painted.

Q: Why do Blacks wear platform shoes?
A: To stop their knuckles from dragging on the ground.

Q: Why don't you run over a Black guys bike?
A: Because it might be yours!

Q: What did God say when another Black baby was born?
A: OPPS! Burnt another one.

Q: What does NBA mean ?
A: Nothing but Africans.

Q: What do you call a 100 year old black man in a barn ?
A: Antique farming equipment.

A little, short man about 5 foot 5inches walks into a bar, sits down and orders a beer. The bar tender looks and him and says, "Hey man, you better get out of here with that shirt on." The man replies "Why?" The bar tender says well first off it says "I HATE NIGGERS". And secondly it's about 10 minutes from now a lot of them come in here from work. The man insists he will be fine. He proceeds to finish his beer, and orders another one. Well right as he is doing so, three blacks walk in and sit down next to him. They order some drinks, and then notice the man's shirt. The first black guy turns to the white man and says what does your shirt say?" The white man turns to the bar tender and says, "The first thing I hate about black guys is they can't read." The second black guy turns to him and says, "What did you say"? The white man again turns to the bar tender and says, "the second thing I hate about black guys is that they can't hear." The third black guy (a huge black guy, 6ft 9in, arms the size of dumbbells, really mean looking) turns to the white man and says, "Would you like to take this outside?" The white man agrees to take it outside. 10 minutes later he returns and sits back down, orders another beer, and says to the bar tender " The third thing I hate about black guys is that they always bring a knife to a gun fight"

Now that IS funny, you gotta admit.

*And I have a nasty suspicion that the Greens may not be entirely opposed to such laws.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Who's in charge of Australia? Not Labor, that's for sure.

Heard the news, boys and girls?
SENIOR Israeli diplomat Dan Gillerman has urged Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd not to send a delegation to a United Nations forum on racism, saying it will be used as a platform to bash Israel.
And Australia, being the sovereign multi-nation that would never kow-tow to the capricious whims of another country on matters which it has no authority to call the shots...has mindlessly obeyed Israel and has boycotted the summit. Even worse, America has shunned it too. Nice 'change' you got there, Obama.

Having read some of the stuff that went on 8 years ago, I do see some degree of antisemitism in the original forum in regards to the focus on the Middle East, whilst neglecting the rest of the world (Israel isn't the only country with race problems. Especially in '01).

However, that is a damn poor excuse for not attending this summit. What does Australia expect to gain from not attending? If there is no racism or antisemitism (Israeli paranoia notwithstanding), we will look like we have our collective heads up Israel's collective arses (we do anyway, but this would just highlight it further). And if there is genuine antisemitism at the conference, would we be more effective in trying to tone it down or walk out rather then not being there at all?

Bloody hell-I though one of the reasons why we voted Johnny out was because we were tired of other countries dictating what we did.

And on a final note-Age?

Get your friggin' act together.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

T to the A to the P: the sequal.

OR: Time for another 40ish year old who sends our hearts a flutterin'. Previously, there was Daniel 'Delicious' Craig. This time, it's Johnny 'Jack' Depp.

The final picture, I have it in poster form. I don't know how or why I'm straight. I really don't.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Random philosophical question of the day

If you are pure good, does that mean

a) you feel no temptation to do any act of evil-no matter how minor?


b) you feel all human temptation, but you possess an indomitable will power to resist such temptations?

Thinking about it, this could be applied to evil as well. If you are pure evil, then does that mean:

a) you recognise the pain you are causing to others, but simply don't care?


b) you fundamentally cannot comprehend how you are hurting others?

I honestly don't know.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

From the world of Andrew "I'm a journalist! No, really, I am! Why are you all laughing?" Bolt:

You don't like the way Israel has historically treated the Palistinians?

Captain Lefty, Sarah, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International- you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. All Israel has done is exercise his* democratic right to kill those random brown people who may have disliked Israel (if they didn't then, they certainly will now)-those same democratic rights the Coalition of the Willing have been wielding for the past 6+ years.

You'd all better unanimously apologise for insulting the 2nd Greatest Country To Bless This World (TM), or be banished from the internets forever.

*In accordance to Israeli policies, all terms of remotely feminine nature (her, she, etc) have been replaced with male counterparts for the foreseeable future.

(Note on the label: yes, I know that 'Arabia' covers only a portion of the Middle East, which I'm pretty sure doesn't cover Israel. But let's face it; Arabia is a far better name. So I'm sticking with it, geography be damned)

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Double-you. Tee. Eff.

Inspired by Admiral Phoenix, I decided to take the militant feminist test.

Honestly, I really don't know how I got that. I see myself as a libertarian-leaning feminist, myself-feminism with a focus on individual choice. But evidently not.

I think I'll go castrate myself.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Warning to all kitteh lovers:

if you ever think your cat might be trying to ice you...

Don't say this blog hasn't warned you.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Cork yer arses! Teh homos are commin!!

It isn't a good time to be an American homophobe. First there was the election of Mr. B. Then, both Iowa and Vermont legalised same-sex marriage, thus speeding up the decline of the Western civilisation. Now, the Man O' The House is considering replacing the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in the American military with one of non-discrimination.

Take it away, Toxic Venomous Coalition!
San Francisco Values Democrat Ellen Tauscher (CA) has introduced H.R. 1283, the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act Of 2009.” She already has 136 co-sponsors.

Her misnamed bill should be called the “Legalization Of Sodomy On The Battlefield And Barracks Act” to more accurately describe what the legislation will legalize.
Why don't you just say "gays are all promiscuous slutbags who are addicted to sex and possess zero self control. Gays who don't have hardcore sex 24/7 aren't real gays. And stop banging on about your new fangled 'no true Scotsman fallacy' crock; our logic is watertight." At least you'd then be a little more open about it.
The bill will amend Title 10 of the United States Code to replace the current policy on homosexuals with a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The legislation will add “sexual orientation” to the law. It is defined in H.R. 1283 as “heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived, and includes statements and consensual sexual conduct manifesting heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.” This will open up the possibility that every sexual orientation could be legalized in the military! This will include cross-dressing and transsexualism. Proof of this is that several bills are being pushed through Congress that will make drag queens and transgenders into federally protected minorities. The Tauscher bill will impose the homosexual agenda on the military!
Please use the correct terminology, TVC. It's called "teh homosexual agenda."
Confusing History The history of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is confusing. Congress passed a law in 1993 that reaffirmed the long-held standard that homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service. However, President Clinton ignored the law and issued a policy statement that homosexuals could serve in the military as long as they didn’t tell anyone they were homosexuals. Military authorities were ordered not to “ask” if someone was a homosexual. This Clinton policy has become known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and most Americans think this is federal law. Tauscher’s subversive bill will overturn the federal law passed by Congress and undermine the military in dozens of ways. One of the most obvious ways it will subvert the military is to drive out men and women who view homosexuality as a sinful or unnatural behavior. These straight soldiers will retire or refuse to reenlist if they are forced to serve with individuals who engage in bizarre sex acts on military bases.
Sarah and Harriet summed it up best: "Amid this whole uproar [over gays in the military], the most apt comment I heard was on my local eleven o'clock TV news when they interviewed a woman on the street. She said, "I don't understand somethin'. These guys are supposed to travel all over the world, live in trenches, sleep in mud, and walk over minefields. But they can't take some guy lookin' at 'em?"
Those who do stay in the service will be forced into re-education classes to teach them that homosexuality is genetic and that homosexual behaviors are no different than heterosexual sexual behaviors in marriage.
It's Jane Folger's persecution fantasies all over again!
The legalization of sodomy in the military will also reduce the numbers of men and women who will enlist in the service. A Military Times poll of active-duty personnel revealed that 58% of them oppose repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A 2008 poll found that if the law is repealed, 10% of the respondents would not reenlist and 14% said they would consider ending their careers.

This would have a devastating impact on our military readiness. The best and most patriotic of American soldiers would leave the service to individuals with sexual identity problems.
(my emphasis)

You've got to love both the ingenuity and maliciousness of TVC. In one sentence they some up so many of their beliefs: conservatives are flag wavin' patriots. Liberals are flag burnin' traitors. Conservatives know how to defend their country.* Liberals would cower and run, metaphorical tails between their legs.
Imagine the impact that the rampant spread of STDs, including HIV would have on the military? How will the military handle the spread of these diseases in the barracks? How will the military handle sodomy in battlefield situations? Imagine the impact that sexual favoritism would have in subverting military cohesion? A homosexual Sergeant who was in love with a member of his company, could protect his lover from battle – or send a straight soldier into harm’s way just to punish him for having the wrong attitudes about homosexuality. Straight soldiers could be denied promotion by militant gay officers. The military chain of command would be undermined.
Despite absolutely no evidence to back up your wild, conspiratorial claims.
Col. Ron D. Ray, (USMCR, retired) has written extensively on the dangers of permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the military. In his essay, “Lifting The Ban On Homosexuals In The Military: The Subversion Of A Moral Principle,” he notes: “Junior officers and NCOs already fear that any and every effort made to investigate or screen [homosexuals] can and will be challenged as a ‘witch hunt’ leading to legal and public challenges and criticisms. Investigating or criticizing homosexuality will become as politically incorrect as pointing out the military significance of the many real differences between the sexes. The troops will get the message.”

In addition to the coming persecution of straight soldiers, what about the unrestrained drug and sex antics committed by young male homosexuals? Homosexual sex is consistently related to drug use, including crystal meth and other sexually-stimulating drugs. What sort of chaos will be caused in the military by bare-backing parties and other forms of homosexual orgies?

There is also an effort by the White House and Congress to legitimate drag queens/transgenders in the military, too. The normalization of these behaviors are in many bills being pushed through Congress. This will impact the military as well.

The passage of H.R. 1283 is a recipe for disaster in the military – and our national security will be jeopardized by permitting homosexuals, drag queens and others with bizarre sex habits to serve openly in the Armed Forces.
Blah Blah, gays are Satan's sex toys and will spread their purile filth and decadency across our God-fearing, straight-as-an-arrow, 'redder then then a redhead covered in tomato sauce in the Sahara Desert' ultra manly military men. We've heard it all before, just with a different subject.

Check out the AFA.
In Massachusetts, a court has discovered a right to homosexual “marriage” in the state’s constitution...
Did you put interracial marriage in scare quotes after Loving v. Virginia, too?
And recently, the U. S. Supreme Court decreed that the laws of nature and of nature’s God are in violation of the Fourteenth Amend-ment’s equal protection clause...
The "laws of nature" actually do permit homosexuality. And I know how much you fundies love Biblical literalism, but God's Laws also permit slavery and the execution of disobedient children. Do you support those ideals, or will you simply cherry-pick which part of the Bible you will devoutly follow, and which parts you will ignore?
The definition of marriage...has never been questioned – until now.
Ignoring all those past redefinitions of marriage.
The inherent dignity of humanity is imprinted in the male-female union because it reflects the beauty of a created order that transcends the individuals who comprise the union.
All the clever writing in the world doesn't change the fact that a) almost half of all US marriages end in divorce, and b) gays can love just as much as straights.
Many homosexuals, though, argue that denying them the “right” to marry is no different than laws that prohibited interracial marriage. They are wrong. Anti-miscegenation laws, as they were called, were designed to keep men and women of different races from intermarriage, not from marriage as such. For example, under anti-miscegenation laws, blacks and whites could still marry within their racial group; marriage, then, was not redefined, as homosexuals now claim a right to do, but denied on the basis of race to those who already met the natural requirements of marriage.
And all the clever spin doctoring in the world doesn't change the fact that you're a bullsh*t artist. US marriage was redefined from 'a man and a woman from the same race' to 'a man and a woman.' Personally, I'd call that a 'redefinition.'
Most Americans are agreed that the power to redefine marriage should not be placed in the supple hands of judges who would decree that it is what it is not. Social engineering is not in the judicial job description.
Most Americans, if they knew their history, would disagree with you.

And to finish off the trifecta of fundie craziness, we have the FRC.
"Same-sex 'marriage' is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists
"Wealthy"? Cite, please.
and a liberal elite
Where would you ultracons be without that word? It's weird-I always thought that the Republican Party was full of elitists.
determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage,
You could add that to The Party's slogan. "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.** Equality is Destruction." (In case you haven't read 1984-and I highly recommend it-the first sentences are the original ones.)
but democracy as well. Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage," said Perkins.
That's probably because what the citizens what isn't necessarily what should be law.

That's all I can be bothered reading, to be frank. I actually feel rather dirty after reading that. Still, it was worth it for the title.

*Probably because they're the best at mindlessly following orders. An early diet of fundie creationism does that to people.

**I wonder if Karl Rove has read 1984. It would certainly explain why "Ignorance is Strength" is so entrenched in the GOP.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Random thoughts on religion and evil.

(Private's note: I'm aware that after the picture, the font randomly changes. Blogger is currently being a shithead).

It's pretty well-established that religion is a common justification for evil. It's the classic "my God says it's true, therefore I must do it and I am absolved of all blame for my beliefs and actions." From the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, to the KKK, the IRA and Real IRA, to the Army of God, from the Taliban to al Qaeda...for some true comedy gold, check out the site 'Fundies Say the Darndest Things!,' where you get the feel for how religion can justify acts of horror. One of the most horrific recent examples is this:

A WOMAN suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has confessed to organising their rapes so she could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.

Samira Jassam, 51, was arrested by Iraqi police and confessed to recruiting the women and orchestrating dozens of attacks.

In a video confession, she explained how she had mentally prepared the women for martyrdom operations, passed them on to terrorists who provided explosives, and then took the bombers to their targets.

“We arrested Samira Jassim, known as ‘Um al-Mumenin’, the mother of the believers, who was responsible for recruiting 80 women’‘, Major General Qassim Atta said.
“She confessed her responsibility for these actions, and she confirmed that 28 attempts had been made in one of the terrorists’ strongholds,’’ he said
Stupid Evil Bastard states:
Got that? This Muslim woman is so convinced that Allah is real instead of just a figment of her imagination that she ordered 80 of her fellow women to be raped specifically so they would be vulnerable to being pressured into becoming suicide bombers. She not only was convinced that suicide bombing was justified by her religion, but she felt justified in having her fellow Muslim women raped to further the cause she believed in. She is so convinced of the rightness of what she’s done in the name of Allah that she’s confessed to the crimes on video. She sees nothing wrong with it. It was a necessary thing to do because women are less likely to be searched at checkpoints making them more likely to get through with explosives under their robes.

It’s hard to imagine how anyone could consider this even remotely conscionable, yet here’s someone who’s convinced it was perfectly reasonable because she believes in an invisible sky fairy who will reward the women in the afterlife even if their sacrifice was coerced through rape and manipulation. What’s a little rape and exploitation when Allah will reward them for eternity once they blow themselves up? Only a True Believer™ could think like that.
This is one of the problems of atheism: that the line between atheism and antitheism is quite blurred, and easily cross into each other. Atheists tend to get caught up in their dislike of religion that they forget that if it weren't for religion, humanity would find other excuses such acts. Take, for example, the Rwandan Genocide. The genocide was the finality of the war, which itself was the fruit of European colonization (Germany and later Belgium 'racialised' the ethnic groups (with the Tutsis considered 'superior' to the Hutus), fostering a hatred between the ethnicities that accumunated in the genocide).

From TIME:

We step inside Nyamata church and my guide, Josh Ruxin, points out the wall where babies were smashed up against the brick.


A holocaust colors everything that follows, alters the essence of a nation. And it fosters a lasting mystery — an incomprehension over how man could behave so inhumanly to man. At his offices in Kigali, President Paul Kagame says: "Hutu fathers killed their own children because some of them resembled their wives, who were Tutsi. How do you explain that?"
This was an act of evil that stemmed from a raw, racist-nationalist hatred of another ethnic group. Religion played no part in its justification. If religion had been the justification for the Hutu genocide atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens would cite it as further proof of the raw evil that is religion.

Lt. Ville makes his point clear in this post:

And this my main gripe with dogma and religion: if people follow it so devoutly and if it is so contradictory, conflated and confused then, then there can be untold consequences. The Taliban, for example (an extreme one too), distort the message of the Koran to brainwash their militia. The question, then, is would they be able to do it as successfully or as passionately without the Koran? Could they be an irreligious militia and be just as effective? If so, then what’s the point in following (and subsequently misreading) the Koran anyway? And how might one vote differently if they were religious? They would have a different slant on things perhaps.

To conclude, I think it’s ridiculous to follow dogma as a way to guide one’s life. But I think you all know that already
(my emphasis)

My answer is "Yes, you can be a sociopathic terrorist organisaton lacking in religion.” The Nazis and current neo-Nazis are mostly irreligious. Some neo-Nazis even believe that Christianity is a tool of Jews, because the New Testament continues from the Old. Neo-Nazis justify their evil by the belief that they are in a 'race war' and if they don't kill all the non-whites, then the non-whites (the footsoldiers of the Jews) will kill them.

Now, how different is that from the Taliban? The Taliban believe almost the same thing, only replacing 'whites' with 'ultraconservative hardline Muslims' and 'non-whites' with 'West.' What we have is almost identical beliefs, merely with differing justifications.

And if you don’t have nationalism, good ol’ vengeance works pretty well.

Atheists should also keep in mind that science has been used to justify evil. After the enlightenment, ‘God’ was no longer an acceptable answer for unanswered questions. People began examining and studying the world for answers, thus helping fuel the growth of the scientific method. However, during this time, slavery was still in existence, and “the good book says so” was no longer an appropriate answer (not on its own, anyway). So people turned to science to justify this evil-and scientific racism was born. Take, for example, this photo from Gliddon and Nott’s Indiginous Races of the Earth (1857).

This is a perfect example how science overtook religion as a justification for evil. Today, we can see a similar parallel with gay rights. Before, religion was the sole justification for the oppression of gays. Although religion still plays a part, homophobes are aware of the influence and power of science. This is where pseudo-scientists such as Paul Cameron come in. Cameron is a ‘scientist’ whose theories and methods have been debunked by various psychological organisations, such as the ASA and CPA. However, despite being discredited, Cameron still peddles his hatred disguised as science-that gays molest children, they're a public health hazard, they're diseased (I feel like I'm describing The Eternal Jew here)...you get the idea.

If Cameron is proof of anything, it is that science is as easily twisted and abused for evil as religion is.

Perhaps atheists should loosen their hang-ups on religion-if history has taught us anything (asides from the fact that we never learn from it), it's that people will use any excuse to justify evil. Religion is simply the most common.

Fun stuff can be read here, here and here.