"Totally coup, yo."

The 5 Best Cases of Religious Schadenfreude

Aug

12

by

Schadenfreude isn’t even the best word to describe what you feel when you hear about cases like these. It’s a very specific kind of schadenfreude: one where you know that the subject’s irrational beliefs somehow shaped their own downfall, so that their own life becomes a case study against the very worldview they had adopted. We’re all happy that Hitler killed himself in the end, but how much sweeter would it have been if rumors of him being part Jewish had sent him to his own gas chambers? Clearly, that would have been awesome. So let’s look at some cases like that.

5) Paul Ingram

What he believed:

Paul Ingram was a chief civil deputy of the Olympia, Washington’s sheriff’s office and the Chairman of the local Republican Party. He was also a fundamentalist Christian, and one day one of his daughters returned from a church “retreat” with “recovered memories” of Satanic ritual abuse by, among others, her father.

This was in the late 1980s, during the height of the “Satanic panic,” when stories like Ingram’s were about as common as stories of Mexicans invading Texas ranches are today. When the accused denied any such abuse, the accusers would claim that the abuser was repressing their own memories just as the victim had. That would mean that it’s time for a “therapy” session so that the accused could recover their memories and confess. On the other hand, if the accused confessed immediately, they were also seen as guilty. Much like the old witch hunts from centuries ago, all accused were presumed guilty and there was no way for them to prove their innocence.

Since Ingram was generally supportive of this idea that there were rings of Satanic cults raping and torturing their own children, he was open to the idea that he himself had been involved but had suppressed his memories. His pastor and a court-appointed “therapist” supported this hypothesis and kept him in the dark when skeptical investigators challenged the accusations.

The Schadenfreude:

Ingram acquired a Christian attorney with limited experience in criminal law, who let Ingram plead guilty. Pretty much immediately after being sentenced, the reality of his situation started to dawn on him and he tried to withdraw his guilty plea with the aid of a legitimate law firm. The motion was denied, and Ingram went to prison. He remained there for the next 15 years and was released in 2003. Further details of the case are available here.

4) Kent Hovind

hovind

What he believes:

Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind is primarily known as a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), but he believes just about any crazy ideas he hears about. Even as YECs go, Hovind’s the worst of the worst. Exhibit A: Answers in Genesis has a list of arguments they wish other YECs would stop using because they’re so easy to refute that even my old friend Ken Ham is embarrassed by them. Most of them were and still are old favorites of “Dr. Dino,” so he responded to what he saw as AIG’s unreasonable attempt at quality control (an “overreaction”) with a long, psychotic rant (deleted from his site but archived here), buffered with his customers’ testimonials of his “integrity.”

Here he is with Sasha Baren Cohen on his Ali G Show, doing his standard creationist shtick.

And if you’re on a road trip, or have a few hours to kill, you really have to listen to this hilarious debate on the Infidel Guy show between Hovind and Dr. Massimo Pigliucci.

But you miss out on the whole picture here unless you take into account some of Hovind’s other lesser-known beliefs. Hovind’s also a rabid conspiracy theorist. And when you think about it, this is pretty much necessary for creationists as well as any other science deniers. There would have to be a vast conspiracy afoot for evolution to be both false and widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields. And when you give credibility to the idea that most scientists are lying about their work in order to promote what Hovind sees as their religion, it’s not too much of a stretch to apply that same paranoid approach to politics.

So for example, Hovind believes that flu vaccines are a plot to make people dependent on the government. And it’s not just any government, but a “one world government” (as opposed to a multiple worlds government, I guess). And this “one world government” is going to be run by Freemasons and Catholics and Muslims and Jews. Also the trails that airplanes leave are really made of poisonous chemicals to kill most of the global population, but somehow magically spare the lives of the “one world government” conspirators.

I could go on in this vein for a while, but I’ll spare the reader and cut straight to the most relevant of Hovind’s conspiracy theories – you don’t have to pay taxes! See, the Bible doesn’t say anything about a federal income tax. It just says that you have to render unto Caesar that which is Caeser’s. But Caesar has been dead for thousands of years, so that is just ancient history. How could Kent Hovind pay Caesar? He couldn’t, that’s how.

The Schadenfreude:

In January of 2007, Hovind began serving a ten year sentence after being convicted on 58 counts of federal crimes. He remains in prison today, where he writes e-mail to God and whines about what he perceives as his own martyrdom. Unlike Paul Ingram, Hovind remains committed to the same worldview which has caused him so much harm.

He cried like a little baby at his sentencing, begging that he be allowed to “just go home” and to have his friends pay his back taxes so he could continue preaching. The courts were having none of it, and they rejected all of his appeals – probably because they were the ravings of a deranged lunatic. Later his property at the Dinosaur Adventure Land – Hovind’s lame attempt at a creationist Disneyworld in Pensacola – was confiscated by federal authorities. Hovind is scheduled to be released in 2015.

3) Joseph Smith

What he believed:

So this is the Mormon guy. You probably already know the story of the magical stones and the golden tablets and how he met an angel while meditating on a mountaintop and all that Lord of the Rings crap. What you might not know is that starting a weird cult like the LDS Church took a few trial runs before it all really took hold in Utah.

Joseph Smith never even made it to Utah. It was his successor, Brigham Young, who had established Utah as home of the Mormons. While Smith was in charge, the LDS Church was a roving band of wanderers who tried settling every now and then until they were driven out by the local communities. Smith took his snake oil show on the road from Palmyra, NY to Ohio to Missouri to Illinois, each time declaring that the new Mormon home was some kind of holy land. And each time they had to leave it was because their beliefs were just too fucking crazy for words.

The Schadenfreude:

By the time Smith made it to Illinois, his ego was getting to be a liability. He became the mayor of a small town and took charge of a militia, which he then used to try to suppress a local newspaper which printed things the LDS Church did not like. Since he had to worry about that pesky First Amendment, the governor of Illionois at the time came after Smith and put him in jail.

While awaiting trial, Smith’s followers attempted a jailbreak. They sneaked a gun into prison and Smith tried to shoot his way out. This turned out to be a bad idea, even for the mid 19th century. He was shot and killed during the escape attempt.

2) Hulda Regehr Clark

What she believed:

Hulda Clark was a notorious quack who believed that she could cure all diseases. Her primary focus was on cancer – that is ALL cancers. One of her books was called The Cure of All Cancers. Another was called The Cure For HIV/AIDS. Another was called The Cure For All Diseases.

Clark called herself a naturopath, which is a bullshit term alternative medicine practitioners use. She had a problem with conventional Western medicine (a.k.a. medicine) because medical practitioners, especially ones critical of Clark, are “arrogant.” Someone who wrote a book called The Cure For All Diseases is calling someone else arrogant. Let that settle in your mind for a minute.

The Schadenfreude:

Clark had her problems with the Federal Trade Commission and the Food & Drug Administration, as well as local authorities for practicing medicine without a license; but as you can probably tell from the use of past tense in this section, the real hilarity was when she died. Of cancer – which, if you remember from the above is something she claimed she could cure.

1) Yanadi Kondaiah

What he believed:

This one is easily my favorite, and the simplest. Kondaiah was a “holy man” in India who claimed to have a magical leg. He claimed it had “healing power.” He also made claims to be able to predict the future, but the article’s not exactly clear on whether or not that power came from his leg.

The Schadenfreude:

Some enterprising folks asked themselves why they should pay to make wishes on a holy man’s leg when they can amputate it for free. And so that’s what they did. First they got him drunk. Then he passed out. Then the two men hacked off his leg with a hunting knife and hauled it off. Hilarity ensued.

—-

This article was originally posted at Nanobots Will Enslave Us All.

  • IDM

    At least Kondaiah did not claim he had a magical penis.

  • BobFerrapuhls

    That’s the thing with magical legs–easy come easy go.

    Oh Henry!

  • garth

    Honestly, every time i see a church i feel schadenfreude.

  • Mandaliet

    More proof that you should never believe things most people don’t believe.

  • Brian

    I’m not Christian, I’m agnostic I guess, maybe atheist (I don’t really care enough either way). I’m guessing the point of this web site and this particular post is to make a bold political statement about the futility of organized religion (probably the hypocrisy of Christianity in particular) through “humor”. But what you do (and what a lot of amateur sites like this one also make the mistake of doing) is point out a handful of crazy people in the largest group of people in the world. Five people, that’s all you’ve got? I live in Colorado Springs, I meet five crazy religious people before lunch every day. All this post has done is convinced me that some atheists are unfunny dicks (not all there are too many to stereotype like that). I followed a link here from Patton Oswalt. He said it was funny which is odd, he’s funny so you’d think he would know from funny.

  • DammyV

    Some of the info is entirely and deliberately false here. You can’t fight lies with lies of your own.

    Shame, because it could be a valid, insightful article.

  • Andrew

    Also followedPatton Oswalts tweet. Liked the bit about Hovind, my youthpastor made us watch his lecturesback in the day atleast until we told him we didn’t want to listen to a criminal. Nothing like busting a preacher’s balls.

  • http://www.synDCon.net Frylock

    In re comment above, Patton Oswalt should know funny, but just like religious folk, is basing his views on an emotional attachment to his faith. (True atheism requires faith, as you can’t prove the negative.) Thus, he doesn’t know funny in this case.

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    DammyV: Some specifics would be nice.
    Frylock: Atheism means lack of theism. What’s that have to do with faith or proof?

  • electricspacegirl

    I followed this from Patton Oswalt’s link too, and I thought it was funny. Not sure what the author has against natural medicine (you know more and more doctors are accepting natural and eastern medicines as playing an important role in people’s health, right?), but other than that obvious bias, I was amused.

    I especially liked the Paul Ingram story. I didn’t know that one.

  • Brian

    Frylock, that’s a brilliant observation. I hadn’t thought about it that way before. That’s what’s always bothered me about holier than thou Christians and holier than thou atheists. You never know the good ones because they tend to leave you alone and mind their own faith.

  • cin

    loved it! Thanx Patton..was worth the visit:)

  • lockerspaniel

    LOL looks like daniel didn’t even read the post!

  • http://bullmartin.blogspot.com Kyle

    Agree with Brian. I don’t really find these funny, but more sad. The one about the man losing his leg is funny in a sick way, but I get no joy out of the thought of someone losing his leg, even if he was a con-man. And did Ingram deserve to go to prison or did Clark, while certainly a hack, deserve to die of cancer? I don’t get why people would get joy out of hearing these tragic and sad tales, even if those who were the victims weren’t great people to begin with. I’m a big fan of Patton’s but a little disappointed in this link.

  • http://bullmartin.blogspot.com Kyle

    Josh: Is Atheism without a belief in god or a rejection of the belief in god. In other words, does my 9 month old daugher count as an atheist because she doesn’t beleive in god regardless of the fact that she is ignorant of the idea? I think you are right that simply not believing in god doesn’t necessarily take faith, but a rejection of god does. Imagine if I say to you, “I can sprout watermelons out of my ass.” You don’t know me or anything about me, but your intellect tells you that I’m probably full of shit. But, you still have to have faith in your own intellect and your experience with the method of proper watermelon cultivation. Therefore, it still takes faith to reject my assertion that watermelons grow out of my ass.

  • Steve

    I can’t help but think that the purpose of this website, and more specifically, this post, is to get us discussing. Job well done.

    Not a Christian, not an atheist, not agnostic either, but I can’t help but be offended in the same way atheists (or at least the author of this piece) seem to be offended by Christians. To assume that, because you disagree with the answers provided by the church that pissed you off means we will automatically take your answers to be valid, isn’t just egotistical…it’s bullshit. Awesome, you think all natural medicine is laughable…yet plenty of “western” medicines are derived from organic material. Superb, you believe that there is a scientific reason we are “here”…yet the science involved with your proposition is shaky at on some if it’s finer points. I am NOT saying that you can’t have an opinion, or that you are 100% wrong, but I wouldn’t put all of my faith in something that I couldn’t honestly say is true or not. I can believe you are correct, I can believe you are full of shit, but I wouldn’t assume everyone else with agree with me.

    (Quick side bar…does atheism only attack Christianity or are all “gods” and beliefs on blast? A lot that I run into hate Catholicism…but don’t really care about Islam or Hinduism or the Amish. Just wondering)

    It’s awesome that you take umbrage with the fallacies being taught by supposed truth speakers, but I have to call foul when your interpretation is presented with the same conviction of belief. Attempts at humor aside, give us the respect of rational thought as well.

    (I too followed Patton here and am a little disappointed, however, we are discussing…so that’s good. Thanks Patton.)

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    electricspacegirl: What I have against alt med is that it isn’t supported by evidence. If it were, then it wouldn’t be alternative. It would just be medicine – like Aspirin, which is derived from the bark of a willow tree.

    Scrilly: Yes, someone who claims to cure HIV/AIDS, all cancers, and all other diseases without any evidence is a quack. There is no other word for it. Hulda Clark was a dangerous person and we’re all better off now that she’s dead. Fuck her. The only sad part about her dying is that she can’t suffer anymore.

    Kyle: Atheism means without theism, so technically your child would qualify, but I’d be hesitant to label them that way because that usually implies that the person has thought about the issue and at 9 months she’s way too young to figure that stuff out on her own.
    I don’t need faith to believe that you can’t sprout watermelons out of your ass because the burden of proof is on you, since you’re the one making the positive claim. So if you were to make that claim, I’d just need to analyze the evidence. Until I see some extraordinary evidence, I’m perfectly justified in not believing in your claim. The same is true with claims about gods and Satanic cult conspiracies and “chemtrails” and magical legs and cures for all diseases.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

    Steve: I’m not sure where I said that disagreeing with a church means that I’m automatically valid. Or that there’s a scientific reason why we’re here. From what I’ve gathered from science, the evidence seems to point to there being no overarching cosmic reason for why we’re here.
    As far as “natural medicine” goes, it’s not quite right to pretend that products like Aspirin prove its efficacy. When you buy “natural medicine,” the active ingredients (if there are any) aren’t regulated in the way that you can when they’re synthesized. So you can buy 2 bottles of St John’s Wort, and one bottle can contain twice as much active ingredient as the other and you can’t control dosages. Even if the active ingredient really works, “natural medicine” still fails because it clings to this weird, primitive dogma of vitalism.

  • Pingback: The 5 Best Cases of Religious Schadenfreude « Nanobots Will Enslave Us All

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    Scrilly: So your reason for separating Mr. Kondaiah from the others was that he was poor and homeless? I couldn’t find any sources to confirm that claim (please let me know where you found that), and I still don’t see why it should matter. An unsuccessful fraud is still a fraud. Besides, Paul Ingram didn’t profit off of the Satanic Panic, and yet you seemed to take pleasure out of his misfortune. Why don’t you have the same sympathy for him? And why not have the same sympathy for Kondaiah’s victims?

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    So in other words, no, you don’t have any evidence for your belief that Kondaiah was either poor or homeless – unless that program features him, and by the way you describe it I’d bet a large sum of money that it does not. And even if it were true, it’s irrelevant for reasons I’ve already explained. So I still lol@ his amputated leg.
    But yeah, I did confuse you with another commenter who was happy about Ingram. Sorry about that. I don’t see what’s so special about confessions though. Lots of people confess to crimes they didn’t commit. That’s kind of the point with Ingram’s story. And lots of people won’t confess to crimes they actually did commit, like Kent Hovind and Hulda Clark. But so what?

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    Scrilly: The funniest part of the comments for me is that everyone who objects to one part of it seems to find the rest of it just great. You and a few others are perfectly happy to have beliefs of others ridiculed, but you can’t stand anything you agree with or have some kind of condescending fake respect for being similarly ridiculed. So it’s OK for you to read me making fun of Joseph Smith’s death, but when I mock some obvious fraud who’s convincing people to stop treatment for AIDS and cancer, that’s an intolerable injustice.

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    I already pointed out why the alt med stuff is crap, but if you’re that masochistic then go ahead and respond if you want.
    I didn’t say I had further information on him, especially about how much money he has. So what? I don’t think the amount of money he made off of his scam matters. There’s no need to make guesses. He’s a fraud.
    Random violence? That’s not random. If you’re going to extrapolate anything from that story, it’s that the fact that he made claims about his leg being magic had something to do with him getting it sawed off. I actually read the story on him, so I don’t think he was sleeping in a temple. Still don’t see why that matters so much to you.
    You can talk all you want about how some things in it aren’t correct, but you’ve yet to point out any errors in fact. All you’ve been doing is whining that you don’t like this or that.

  • Brian

    @Steve, I like the comment. I agree. This was a pretty good thread until Josh had to go and ruin it with all his parsing and dissecting. I was curious about Atheism’s particular hatred for Christianity also. I have heard some Atheists criticize other religions but it seems like they save their best stuff for Catholics and Protestants.

    The level of hatefulness from the author and a few posters almost seem to earn them their own level of Schadenfreude. Joseph Smith was historically a pretty nasty guy, Yanadi Kondaiah took people’s money, but there doesn’t seem to be evidence that any of the other people in the story did real harm to anyone but themselves. If they did I would at least call the authors writing skills into question for not being a little more thorough and making the case. And I go back to the fact that there are millions of people that worship all kinds of gods (or don’t) that are good people. This is just an ugly article for the sake of ugliness.

  • Brian

    Just a little post script, I didn’t make the connection that Josh was the author, that kind of makes sense now.

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    Gosh, Brian, I’m really sorry for responding in a way you didn’t happen to like. That was very rude of me. I’ll be sure to ask for your permission next time.
    There’s no evidence that the others did harm to others? Paul Ingram contributed to a modern-day witch hunt, Kent Hovind lies to children and refused to pay his share of taxes, and Hulda Clark told people to forego treatment for cancer and HIV/AIDS. But hey, there’s no harm in any of that, right?

  • Brian

    Wow, you really are a fine representative of atheism and I might add you really know how to participate in civil discourse. Nothing cooler than an author getting in a flame war with the readers of a two bit blog. All the article says is Ingram was “generally supportive” of the idea, not exactly a scorching indictment now is it? Kent Hovind lied to children? Where’s it say that specifically in the text? I guess we can surmise it because his nickname is Dr Dino? So he was a teacher? Everyone who tells a kid there’s a Santa Claus is lying to kids. And who did he harm by not paying his share of taxes? A Google search shows 16% of people do the same thing. I’m sure tax system probably absorbed his meager share. I’m not defending him. He’s obviously a nutbag, it’s just that as far as angry humorless people go you seem to be edging right up there with these folks. Did Clark tell people to forgo treatment? Again, there’s no mention in the article. You just point out what she believed. Was she a practicing alternative Doctor. Just because you write some books doesn’t mean people listen to you. And if they do, don’t they hold some of the responsibility for not getting a second opinion or being gullible in the first place. Did people die as a result of what she preached? All I’m saying is, as far as clear concise writing is concerned, I wouldn’t quit my day job or maybe don’t write in anger.

    And as for responding in a way I don’t like, don’t feel you have to apologize. I have room in my heart for all manner of different opinion.

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    Ingram sent his daughters to the “retreat” where they had their “memories recovered.” It says that in the article, too. So maybe take the time to read instead of just spew.
    Kent Hovind’s a creationist. He has a theme park devoted to creationism. Those two facts are both in the article. Hence, lying to children. And he harmed the rest of society by not contributing as he’s required to by law.
    You have to be retarded. If someone has a naturopothy book called The Cure For All Cancers – seriously, what other conclusion can you draw other than that she was telling people to not treat their cancer? Maybe you should worry about your own reading comprehension skills before trying to give advice.

  • Brian

    I stand corrected I have been put in my place. You have proven me to be retarded. And you have proven yourself to be one ugly fuck of a human being. Good luck with the writing career.

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    omg sorry, I didn’t ask permission to provide a counter-argument again. Good luck with your whole pretending-your-functional-illiteracy-is-all-someone-else’s-fault thing.

  • Nivek

    Funny thing is, there’s no such thing as proof. All evidence is based on perception and perceptions are biased towards the perceiver.

    Post Scriptum;
    Hey Brian, how’s it goin’?

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    Hey Nivek:
    Murphy just wrote something addressing that kind of perspective and how it’s useless and impractical and only used to defend the indefensible.
    http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=2910

  • Nivek

    What are you talkin’ about?
    The two are unrelated. Unless you’re suggesting that the data of perception is merely belief. Besides, how is acknowledgment of the observers interpretation of data impractical? Like the apparent interpretation you had while reading my comment…?

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    Well for one thing, proofs exist within mathematics. So there is such a thing as proof.
    And evidence isn’t really just based on perception. When I look at something, I’m seeing something that really exists independent of my perception. And I can get other people to test my perceptions in order to reduce the chance of bias-based error.

  • Nivek

    Ummm… “In mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true”

    So what you’re saying is that evidence (which may or may not need to be perceived) must be agreed upon? Or that one has to convince others of such perceptions, such as mathematical proofs, scientific theories and/or religious/spiritual ideas?

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    I’m saying that 1. proofs exist, and 2. the possible biases based on perception can be reduced or eliminated through scrutiny from multiple observers.

  • Nivek

    Okay, gotcha’.
    The act of convincing people exists.
    Biased observations can be reduced by adding more observers.

    so now, what if the initial biased observer convinces (or ‘proves’ to) his observers? Or the other way around?

    That’s a lot of wiggle room don’t ya’ think?

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    Yeah, proofs do exist and we can reduce the margin of error by adding observers. That’s how peer review works in science. And of course it’s not perfect. But it’s still the best we have. No other method works better.

  • Tamar

    Laughing. Nivek- you can wax on forever about solipsism versus materialism and the like, but it’s useless here because it’s a philosophical argument. Realize that science, history and most disciplines of knowledge have fundamentally rejected this idea. You argue that the author can’t prove anything actually happened in this article, but you can’t disprove it either because you’re using an unfalsifiable philosophy. And, this has just about nothing to do with this article specifically, which I enjoyed. Relax, people, having schadenfreude is not the same as wishing harm to others or being cruel.

  • Nivek

    Sure, but realize that science was born of philosophy and based on postulation and persuasion, as is the rest of philosophy. Therefore, my ‘argument’ can have everything to do with the article.
    Anyways, glad I got a giggle outta’ you, Tamar.

    Just out of curiosity why is #2 even on the list? What’s the connection to religion?

  • Haley

    A lot of your so-called facts here are not even correct. Check your sources, and knock off the name-calling, because it destroys your credibility and makes you sound immature.

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    Hey Nivek: I think it’s pretty self-explanatory in the introductory graf. Hulda Clark fits in here perfectly. Her religious beliefs directly led to her own demise. But I don’t think we’re laughing with you so much as at you.
    Haley: Please feel free to point out any errors in fact. You’re the second person here so far that has told me that I was wrong about facts without actually pointing out any. You might not like me attacking these people, but that’s just about your own subjective preference and I really don’t care about that. But if you’re telling me I’m wrong about factual data, please be a little more specific because I’d like to know if I was wrong about something. Thanks.

  • Mark

    Funny. Thanks.

  • Biff Squat-thrust

    Wow, I wish I had enough spare time to get into extended rankout wars about semantics. Especially in a humor piece.

    Good premise, good article.

  • darkyn

    No Ted Haggard?

  • Brittney

    Man, get your facts straight before you post them. I think you better do some serious research about the Mormons and then reprint this. I happen to be one, and this is not what happened.

  • Zack Wethington

    This is horribly biased and inaccurate. Just disgusting.

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    OK this is the third time I’ve asked, but please feel free to point out any factual errors. Just claiming that it’s inaccurate or that I need to get my facts straight doesn’t really help.

  • Ed

    I live in Pensacola and still chuckle at Kent Hovind’s lunacy and incarceration every time I pass what’s left of Dinosaur Adventureland. Keep in mind we’ve had abortion doctors shot here. You have no idea how depressingly wretched it is for an atheist to live here. Every politician tries to ‘out conservative’ the next. I just want to shoot them all. The one’s who aren’t wrapped up in their religious crap think the movie “Joe Dirt” was a documentary.

  • Brittney

    Well, have you read any history books? You could start your research there.

  • admin

    Dear Brittney,
    You are the reason our species is doomed. Please, kill yourself.
    -Murphy

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    Brittney: Yes, I’ve read history books. I was asking which facts were incorrect though.

  • Edward

    Brittney is correct, Josh, you’ve left out the most salient fact of all: rampant pedophilia within the Mormon community, sanctioned from on high. It’s a revolting practice, and I never fail to be shocked that something like 88% of Mormons encourage pedophilia.

    Shame on you, Brittney.

  • Really?

    Who writes a 5 paragraph essay thinking people honestly care about your opinion? They have to read all the way to the bottom to see your douchebaggery. Seriously, get a life.

  • admin

    Dear Really?,

    Who writes a 3 sentence internet ad hom without swearing? A Mormon, that’s who. Let’s make a deal, Mormon: Bunting will get a life when you give us yours.

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    I don’t think Really? even knows what a paragraph is. Unless s/he was talking about one of the commenters.

  • druggygremlin

    I had a visit the other day from the jehovies, i thought it was all going very well then the female one said she would have to leave as she couldn’t bear to listen to what i had to say and how i said it. I managed to keep the tie wearing one for a little longer as i insisted that the bible was a crock of shit and that their religion was just another mind numbing plague on humanity then he shot off as well. I thought they had more staying power than that.

  • Bestro

    Not a very informative site. This didn’t talk about anything of what people believed in, just what they did. In any case, what people do and what people believe in are totally different things. Most politicians or person in the governments pay roll declare some sort of faith and most of the faiths teach to not lie, yet it’s widely accepted and people are not surprised when they see them lie to their faces.

    Human nature is flawed. We are very selfish etc etc. Few of us have some sort of understanding that when we do “good” or “bad” things there are consequences. Others need something to challenge them to be a better person. Most religions teach to be a better than what they are and rarely (if ever) teaches to cause harm. What is wrong is people forcing their religious or non-religious ideas in a hateful, forceful, and harmful way.

    I’m a religious person myself. I don’t think less of anyone who isn’t, nor do I think less of anyone who isn’t of mine. If I was asked by someone what I thought of another religion taught, I direct them to that religion in question. If asked about my religion I proceed to talk to them. That is how it should be. Teach what you believe, don’t try to teach what other people believe because more than likely, you’ll get it wrong.

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    Hey Bestro, I just got through two sentences of your comment and thought you might notice that I did a section on each of the entries on what they believed. It’s in bold print, even. So I guess I’m saying that your comment about this not explaining what they believed makes no sense at all, since it does.

  • Bestro

    Then you missed the point of my comment.

  • Biff Squatthrust

    For christssakes, it’s a fucking humor piece. Talk about missing the point. You humorously-challenged types are really making my skull ache.

  • http://nanobotswillenslaveusall.wordpress.com/ Josh

    Bestro, if your point was that you didn’t bother to read my article, you succeeded in making that point. I didn’t see any point in continuing past the first two sentences when you’re that demonstrably wrong so quickly.

  • sport

    Some of these facts are facts

  • Archives