Your Issues Have Nothing to Do with Religion

In today's episode of Your Issues Have Nothing to Do with Religion (h/t to Kathryn31), we meet Tzvi Fishman and Michael Tuesday, who have written an article on God-approved married sex that makes me weep for their wives. (Note: standard Jewish teaching on the subject is that sex between spouses is a mitzvah and should be enjoyed any way the couple wishes. This group is apparently rather bizarre, even for fundamentalist Jews.)

So, what does God approve of in the sack? Not a whole lot.

In public and private forums, HaRav Leon has emphasized that the mitzvah of marital congress should not be carried out in a timid and fearful manner, but rather in a robust, loving, and joyous fashion, so that the souls which are brought into the world will be robust and joyful in their service of G-d. Referring to the Gemara that tells how Rabbi Eleazar would conduct his marital relations against his own will as if a demon were compelling him ("kfao shed" - Nedarim 20b), HaRav Leon takes vehement exception and warns that if a person engages in marital relations in such a way, then the offspring, G-d forbid, will be like demons.

Yes, they are indeed saying that whatever your mood is during sex will affect the behavior of the resultant offspring. They say it repeatedly. Sex while angry results in angry children. Thinking of someone else during sex results in horrible children. This is so 5,000 years ago . . . well, so's the holy book, I suppose.

It is a severe transgression for a husband to force himself upon his wife against her will, or when either of them is angry, for this results in children who are aggressive and crude.

"Forcing yourself upon your wife" is rape. That is why it is wrong. End of story.

It is the man’s duty to please his wife, to make her feel loved, and to take the time needed to make sure that her pleasure is complete.

I'd take that more seriously if you didn't just say that rape is wrong because it produces "crude" children.

Before marital relations, a husband should ask G-d to forgive him for all transgressions to the Brit [of a sexual nature] which he committed in the past, including brazen conduct with his wife, which gave strength to the Sitra Achra [negative forces] and caused pain to the Shechinah [Divine Presence]. His intention should be that in engaging in proper and holy marital relations, the souls which fell captive to the realm of impurity through his sins should be rectified and returned their Maker. Both husband and wife should have the intention to bring a holy soul into the world. They should long to unite the Holy One Blessed He and the exiled Shechinah. By guarding his eyes and his thoughts, the husband will radiate holiness and blessing to all of the spirituals worlds that were damaged through his former wrongdoings.

Catch that? Your every sexual thought can cause others' souls to fall captive to the realm of impurity. Boy, Catholics have nothing on this guilt!

During marital relations, the husband and wife should not think of anyone else, for in addition to damaging spiritual worlds, this brings great harm to the children who are born from such unions.

Again with this nonsense!

The exclusive position of the marital union is with the wife lying on her back, facing up, and the husband lying upon her, facing down. This way of union is the select and most perfect union, which the Torah desires. This is called, "the face to face union." Any other position is almost certain to bring about the spilling of semen in vain. If the woman is on top of the man, this is considered brazenness (Shulchan Aruch, 240:5) and the pull of gravity will surely cause the wasting of semen. The same is true if they are standing or sitting. Anal intercourse is considered an act of loathsome brazenness. Besides the absolute spilling of semen in vain, this is considered in the Kabbalah like sacrificing one’s children to the idol Molech. Intercourse from the back is also brazenness, even if the organ of the Brit is inserted into the proper place, and the pull of gravity will cause the spilling of semen in vain from the wife, since she lies on her stomach. Furthermore, because the strongest of klipot surround the buttocks of the woman, when the Brit passes by this impure area, it will be polluted by klipot and these klipot will be transferred to the wife’s sexual organ and to the offspring of such a union. Only in the case of physical handicap or advanced pregnancy may this positioned be approved by a qualified rabbinic authority.

My butt is Teh Evul? Good to know. I thought it was my boobs. Also, um, there's no difference in the length between vagina and anus ever. They're always the same distance apart, whether you're approaching from the front or the rear. I'm also terribly amused at the concept of asking someone other than your partner if you can pretty please do it doggy style.

Oral sex is certainly not kosher, causing the eyes to see what is forbidden to see, and causing the spilling of semen in vain.

So, a husband is not to see his wife's genitals, ever, nor is a wife to ever see her husband's penis. Ever. Um, yeah.

As a warning, the wife should continue to lie on her back after marital relation for approximately ten minutes, and not turn on her stomach or side, and not immediately rise from the bed to go the bathroom, so that her husband’s semen should not flow out from her and cause the wasting of semen.

Okay, here's a little anatomy lesson, or several. Semen is not entirely made up of sperm. Sperm will travel up the vagina to the uterus, though it might take longer than 10 minutes, but the rest of the ejaculate will come back out no matter how long you wait. In fact, given that the uterus/vagina is a self-cleaning organ, it's absolutely guaranteed that all of the ejaculate is eventually coming back out, save for the one sperm who fertilized an egg. Always. Guaranteed. Waiting 10 minutes is useless.

As for not getting up to go to the bathroom, another anatomy lesson. First of all, I suspect these people don't know that the urethral opening and the vaginal opening are two separate holes. (A surprising number of people do not know this.) So, peeing after sex will not clear out the semen. However, the urethral opening is close enough to the vagina that, especially during face-to-face sex, the urethral opening can be irritated or have bacteria introduced to it, which can lead to UTIs. Doctors recommend that women always pee after sex. I guess UTIs are holy!

The marital union should not be engaged in during the day. Children resulting from such unions, when the klipot are strongest, will be afflicted with sufferings throughout most of their lives. If a man cannot control his lust, and if there is thus a danger of spilling semen in vain, then relations may be conducted in a dark room, under blankets or sheets.

Really?

Having relations in a lighted room, whether by lamplight, candle, or moonlight, causes suffering in the children who are born from such unions. Rather, the marital union should be in a dark room at night, preferably after midnight when the klipot are weakened, and the couple must cover their bodies with a blanket or sheet out of modesty. Sabbath night after midnight is the most suitable time for a holy union.

No, really? I just can't see how anyone who believes this ever manages to have children. Also, every time of day is "after midnight", so you might want to be specific as to the ending time for holy unions.

It is a very great mitzvah to engage in marital relations on Sabbath night. It is also fitting one other night during the week, also on Rosh Chodesh, and on holidays when relations are permitted. A Torah scholar should endeavor not to engage in marital relations during weekdays, but rather on Sabbath night after midnight. On the night of the wife’s ritual immersion, or when she hints that she would like his favor, he can engage even during the week, preferably after midnight. It is known that marital relations on weeknights are more accessible to the influence of klipot, therefore one should strive for added holiness.

Never! You are never to have sex!

After going to the bathroom, it is proper for both husband and wife to wait ten minutes before engaging in marital relations. Otherwise impurity will be transferred to the offspring of such a union, adversely influencing their spiritual make-up.

Bodily functions = bad babies

Wow. I don't even know what to say. And if this is a Poe, well, check out the website, that's one determined Poe.

Islam Doesn't Hold the Patent on Crazy

jewish, judaism, murder, israel,
Unless you consider killing nonJewish babies normal behavior.

Just weeks after the arrest of alleged Jewish terrorist, Yaakov Teitel, a West Bank rabbi on Monday released a book giving Jews permission to kill Gentiles who threaten Israel.

Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro, who heads the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in the Yitzhar settlement, wrote in his book “The King’s Torah” that even babies and children can be killed if they pose a threat to the nation.

Shapiro based the majority of his teachings on passages quoted from the Bible, to which he adds his opinions and beliefs.

“It is permissable to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation,” he wrote, adding: “If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments - because we care about the commandments - there is nothing wrong with the murder.”

Several prominent rabbis, including Rabbi Yithak Ginzburg and Rabbi Yaakov Yosef, have recommended the book to their students and followers.

That's not going to end well.

Fundys of All Flavors Suck

jewish, jews, israel, orthodox, sabbath, anne barker, spitting
It's not just Christian fundys that suck, Jewish fundys do, too.

I would like to note that it's fine to expect guests in your home to obey your rules, whether those rules are removing shoes, not smoking or wearing a head scarf*. Expecting a person not of your religion to obey all the rules of your religion, including rules they may not be aware of, is just insane. Spitting on them as punishment? Batshit fucking crazy.

You heard me- spitting as punishment. It happened to ABC's Anne Barker.

Suddenly the crowd turned on me, screaming in my face. Dozens of angry men began spitting on me.
Spit like rain

I found myself herded against a brick wall as they kept on spitting - on my face, my hair, my clothes, my arms.

It was like rain, coming at me from all directions - hitting my recorder, my bag, my shoes, even my glasses.

Big gobs of spit landed on me like heavy raindrops. I could even smell it as it fell on my face.

Somewhere behind me - I didn't see him - a man on a stairway either kicked me in the head or knocked something heavy against me.

I wasn't even sure why the mob was angry with me. Was it because I was a journalist? Or a woman? Because I wasn't Jewish in an Orthodox area? Was I not dressed conservatively enough?

In fact, I was later told, it was because using a tape-recorder is itself a desecration of the Shabbat even though I'm not Jewish and don't observe the Sabbath.

Unfuckingbelievable.


*I don't think women should be forced by a patriarchal culture to act, talk or dress in a manner they don't wish to. However, when a guest in someone else's home, you do as they ask, or you don't accept the invitation. In my house, you don't wear shoes. I don't care how uncomfortable not wearing shoes makes you, you won't have to pay to refinish the floors.

Defining Lust

atheism, atheist, religion, religious, jesus, bible, christian, christianity, muslim, hell, judaism, jewish, orthodox, burqa, modesty, lust
Quasar, over at the SMRT board, has possibly explained a fundy (and I'm speaking of Christian, Jewish and Muslim fundys here) viewpoint that has long confused me- lust.

Fundys make a big deal about sexual attraction, and it's never made sense to me. (Growing up Catholic, you learn a lot about the evils of birth control, but nobody makes a big deal about clothing or lust in general.)

We all know about the burqa and the head scarf, and if you live where I live, you've seen how Orthodox Jewish women dress. Christian fundys aren't generally quite that extreme, but they do make a fuss about modesty.

Quasar's explanation:

Now that I've got you interested with the title... how broad is the definition of lust, and how does this apply to sexually repressed fundies?

For me there are three distinct levels, and I only define the third as 'lust.'

1. The first is simply in passing: I notice a girl, and may not even consiously think about her, but my mind recognises that she has attractive features and I could tell others that she was attractive if they asked.

2. The second is more like 'admiration.' This is simply a platonic admiration of the other persons aesthetics: consiously registering their beauty. An example might be when your eyes fix on someone as they go by. Happens to me a lot.

3. The third is what I call lust, and involves actual sexual attraction. This emotion is extremely rare, and takes a lot to evoke, in me at least.

Now, I'm beginning to think that fundies may have a much broader definition of lust. Consider those who force women to wear head-scarfs to prevent lust from being evoked.It seems to me that they consider even the first definition, simple recognition of attractiveness, to be lust. Something Ray once did (Hi Maragon!) and the general behaviour of fundy christians, leads me to believe that they consider the second definition as lust. Or is it possible that the sexual repression both groups enforce causes them to experience the third definition of lust far more frequently than myself? Or a combination of the two? Chime in! What do you think?

While I find it entirely possible that people who are repressed about sex might end up thinking about it even more (Pink Elephants! I dare you not to think of them!), I think it may well be true that simply noticing a member of the opposite sex, or recognizing their relative attractiveness is what qualifies as lust to fundys.

This is an extremely odd viewpoint because, as another SMRT member noted, one could achieve 1 or 2 with a dog, a horse, a painting or a piece of furniture. Simply acknowledging the beauty in a person is not lust.

To view acknowledging beauty as sin is just mindblowing to me. "God made the world a beautiful place- don't enjoy it or you'll burn forever!" has to be the most depressing theology I've ever heard of.

Now on to 3, real lust. I fail to see what exactly is wrong with lust. For one thing, lust is a desire to act, not an action. For another, we're biologically programmed to lust. Perpetuation of the species and all that. I know, I know, Jesus did say that desire and action are one and the same. Lusting is the same as fucking. Anger is the same as murder.

What a peculiar viewpoint. For one thing, who can control their thoughts? Just writing this is sending me into a really detailed fantasy involving [censored] and it is HOT! What were we . . . oh, yeah, controlling your thoughts. Not possible. I suspect that any religion that puts you in the position of thought sinning is really aiming at a particularly insidious form of control. "You can't control your thoughts, pervert? Better get some Jesus before your burn! Oh, what, Jesus isn't enough to stop you from thinking sinful things? Better start attending church and reading the bible and tithing- otherwise it's the outer darkness for you!"

Thoughts are normal. Noticing another person's beauty is normal. Appreciating another person's beauty is normal. Lustful thoughts are normal. (This fantasy I am having- not so much.) Homosexual thoughts in an otherwise hetero person? Also normal. Getting worked up about it? Not normal, not healthy and not necessary.

We may need a few more bus ads.

Militant Atheism and Mendacity

atheism, atheist, atheophobia, liar, pride, sin, lying, lie, christian, jewish, judeo-christian, values, morality, religion, fundamentalism

Can I just say "militant atheism"? Was I in the bathroom when they were handing out jackboots to the atheists?



And, mendacity, in case you don't know, means given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth. (From Mirriam Webster online.)



Militant Atheism and Mendacity: How the Rise of Atheism is Destroying Truth

by Bruce Walker (if you start voting republican and talking about the superiority of trickle down economics after viewing that site, don't blame me.)



Public opinion polls show faith in a Blessed Creator um, blessed by whom? who blesses the blessor? melting it's melting! (you know what voice i'm hearing here.) in Europe, in other English speaking democracies, in Japan are the Japanese especially christian, and I missed it? nope: shinto and buddhism are the major religions in Japan. a significant portion of buddhists are atheists, and always have been – just about everywhere but America that counts. everywhere that counts? really? oh, that's right, those damn Ay-rabs don't count! (very religious, but not the right one.) and forget about those brown people in africa- who cares about them? (well, not many people apparently, but that's a different discussion.) Even in America, the most religious nation on Earth i think most muslim nations are far more religious, at least officially. and what about israel, aren't they pretty darn religious? oh, that's right, muslims and jews don't count., the percentage of the American people who believe in a Blessed Creator is declining. true, though not by much.


Atheism is not the advocacy of murder or rapine or any other particular social vice wow, that is so true . . . this isn't going to last is it?, so is the decline of faith in God a serious social problem? i'd say it's the solution to a serious social problem, but i'm usually wrong . . . It is. yup, i'm wrong. It is a problem for the same reason that science and the systematic study of knowledge arose precisely once in human history: the Christian medieval university. what? that didn't even make any sense. i can't even imagine what asshat is trying to say. It is. It is for the same reason that the Jewish people have not only survived the Diaspora but thrived and made Israel a living nation again. again, i can't see the comparison/similarity/point here.


Without God, everything is permitted. nothing is true, everything is permitted are supposedly the last words of the founder of the Order of the Assassins, Hassan-i Sabbah. probably not true, but cool nonetheless. That literary maxim of the Nineteenth Century is quite true no, but it somewhat misses the mark. or just entirely misses the mark. The wilted lettuce rusty spoons? moldy bread? sprouting potatoes? of atheism in Europe and America is not about to set up a Gulag or a system of death camps yeah, we're just too wilted for that. Atheists are not championing the cause of ghastly criminals whose horrors haunt our television news. does this guy have multiple personalities or something? Indeed, militant atheism jackboots! in modern industrial democracies masquerades as compassion, “Secular Humanism,” as Bill O’Reilly oh dear, he's quoting O'Liely. and that's not even the person who came up with the phrase. That phrase became popular after it was used in a 1961 Supreme Court decision, Torcaso v. Watkins. Bill was born in 1949, which would have made him all of 12 in 1961. likes to call it.



It is true that the denial of objective moral absolutes which is atheism no, we don't deny objective moral absolutes, we simply don't believe in god. why, oh why, is that so hard to understand? inevitably leads toward more and more members of society becoming self-absorbed monsters what?! there is absolutely no evidence that atheists commit more crimes. in fact, atheists commit less crimes., but that is not the biggest social problem of atheism rampant. Atheist Soviet Russia like atheist Nazi Germany had a degree of social order. please stop blaming us for fascim and communism. i'll have to bring up the crusades and witch trials, and then the discussion really goes downhill. Crimes like murder and rape and burglarly, when not perpetrated by the state, were punished. you mean like capital punishment and eminent domain in the US today? Life is unpredictable, death is certain, and the best grounded system of objective moral absolutes will not prevent tragedy or keep creeps from winning lotteries. Does this asshat agree with me, or not? it's really rather confusing.

oh, and just as a reminder to my atheist and pagan readers, good things are god, bad things are free will.

The hidden horror of atheism oh my! is a greater loss than just the grave which faces us all, and the loss of God i didn't lose god (how does one lose an omnipotent, noncorporeal being, anyway?), i just don't believe in god. involves a loss greater than just chastity, charity and security. that's just odd. atheists are incapable of being chaste, charitable and secure? i'm personally incapable of being chaste, but i am charitable and secure. (not financially, but i'm secure in some things.) The loss of God involves the loss of the possibility of truth. what? Why? do tell. If there are no absolute objective moral virtues, then honesty is not an absolute moral virtue.

As far as that argument goes, it's true. If there are no absolute objective moral virtues, then honesty is not an absolute moral virtue. However, asshat has not established that there are no absolute objective moral virtues, nor has he established that godbotherers have absolute objective moral virtues and atheists do not. This is called the logical fallacy of the unasked question. you assume the answer to a question, and then assert your argument based on that answer. For example: have you stopped shooting heroin yet? This assumes that you ever were shooting heroin, and it's awfully hard to continue a debate until you deal with that.

The Judeo-Christian tradition, what I have sometimes simply called “The Great Faith,” making up your own names for things, huh? godbotherer. demands the absolute moral virtue of honesty isn't that number 9 on the list?, and it shows this demand it ways that surprise unbelievers. really? okay, shock the unbelief right out of me, asshat.

The Hebrew prophets, for example, never once told their audience “The Blessed Creator says everything you are doing is great. Don’t change a thing.” ummm . . . why is this surprising? prophets never say nice things. it's always the fire and the brimstone. On the contrary, that part of the Tanach which deals with the major and minor prophets is a litany of complaints from God to the Hebrew nations. god's whiny? besides, it's not just a "litany of complaints", it's also a litany of really awful things god did to the Israelites as a result of his anger: killing, plagues, killing, snakes, killing, floods, killing and killing. Critically, when the Tanach was canonized, all of these embarrassing and serious complaints from God were kept in, while “feel good” books, like Esther, were almost kept out. it is surprisingly hard to keep one's station as a powerful religious leader when the gospel is "hey, good enough for you, good enough for god."

Likewise, the Church Fathers did not try to reconcile inconsistencies in the Gospel. wow, is this guy a secret atheist? you rarely hear the word "inconsistencies" attached to "gospel" out of a christian. usually, it's either "inconsistencies" and "evolution" or "there are no inconsistencies in the gospel- see this overly complicated explanation that involves facts i can't possibly prove?" Quite the contrary, the different versions of the ministry of Jesus are deliberately kept in. all four of them. out of twelve. for further explanation, see the Council of Nicea. Things hard to grasp and harder to explain are left in the Gospels. Did Jesus have siblings? Why does He pray to His Father on the Cross, like an abandoned child? These very difficulties, like the difficulties of the prophets or the anomalies of Genesis have been kept for thousands of years precisely because serious Jews and serious Christians believe in honesty and believe that honesty is the path to truth and to God. or because changing the gospels every time somebody notices a problem is basically admitting that the gospels are not the direct word of yhwh?

Atheism, like Allahism (or Sinisterist Radical Islam) what?! i bet this guy believes the Illuminati, or some similar group of jewy jewish conspiring conspirators are involved in a conspiracy to control the world, by contrast, has no objective moral absolute against lying. lying is wrong. lying is wrong because when you lie to people, you don't treat them with respect. lying is wrong because if everyone lies, and you can't trust anyone, society falls apart within 0.5 seconds. People of faith, like everyone, lies sometimes slightly less than atheists and Sinisterist Radical Islamists?, but they realize that lying is a sin so, it's okay to lie, as long as you realize it's a sin? does that in any way affect the fact that you have lied, or the damage lying does? no. can we say "rationalization"?. Atheists simply realize that lying is the easiest way of accomplishing your objective yes, it is. if your objective happens to be making certain no one trusts you. This does not just mean self-enrichment or self-aggrandizement, but it also means achieving goals which, to an atheist, are “noble.” you know, like equal rights for everyone, food for starving children, health care for everyone, saving the environment. we're an evil, evil people. and godbotherers never lie to achieve an objective which they might consider noble. (see: Ray Comfort)

So, when religion came under its most serious attack in the early Nineteenth Century, religion or christianity? I find it hard to believe that in all the history of the world, that atheism (and I think he's really referencing evolution, which is science, which is not atheism) is the most serious attack on religion. i mean, what about the lions? the professors who launched the attack first began to lie. They pronounced as fact things like Christians had believed the Earth was flat before Columbus actually, at one point, christians did believe the world was flat. so did most people. these people still do. or that the complaints about Galileo’s heliocentrism were theological they were. stop rewriting history, asshat., rather than scientific, even though they knew this was not true.

Because these professors did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God, they saw no ethical problem with destroying the idea of God with lies. really? all professors (i think he means scientists, too) are atheists? this just isn't true. nor are all people who recognize the irrefutable fact that the church's position on heliocentrism is a fact atheists. Serious Christians and Jews, by contrast, could not do that. why yes, christians and jews would not try to disprove the existence of yhwh with lies. that's true. Dishonesty is a sin. or it's just wrong for rather obvious reasons.

The consequence is that a marketplace of ideas filled with atheists quickly produces a lot of counterfeit intellectual currency. BWAHAHAHAHAHA that was great! that's right- atheists lie and lie and lie. it's all we do. we don't have little things called facts and evidence and logic behind our assertions. Why be even-handed in research if you know that you are right and there is no God to worry about? why be even-handed in research if you know that you are right and god is behind it all? Indeed, why worry about even being right? cause it's science, asshat? if atheists/scientists didn't worry about being right, that computer you typed this on, and the internet you display it on, wouldn't fucking work. neither would your car. or the lights in your house. If you fancy a theory, fabricate findings to “prove” it and then move on

(much like Margaret Mead did when she invented findings about Samoa, because it described a reality she preferred.

(1) Margaret Mead was never discredited. As Boas and Mead expected, this book upset many Westerners when it first appeared in 1928. Many American readers felt shocked by her observation that young Samoan women deferred marriage for many years while enjoying casual sex but eventually married, settled down, and successfully reared their own children.
In 1983, five years after Mead had died, anthropologist Derek Freeman published Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, in which he challenged Mead's major findings about sexuality in Samoan society, claiming evidence that her informants had misled her. After years of discussion, many anthropologists concluded that the truth would probably never be known, although most published accounts of the debate have also raised serious questions about Freeman's critique. His obituary concludes that "many anthropologists have agreed to disagree over the findings of one of the science's founding mothers, acknowledging both Mead's pioneering research and the fact that she may have been mistaken on details."

(2) look, it's one discredited scientist. all scientists are liars. you don't want to play that game- ted haggard, anyone?)

This all falls from the prime sin of pride. oh, now we're prideful and liars. and, since when is pride the prime sin? according to the Ten Commandments, the prime sin is holding another god before yhwh- which atheists do not do. Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins which are not listed in the bible. In fact: The Seven Deadly Sins are really attitudes that underlie sins . . . first identified by St. John Cassian (360-435) and refined by Pope St. Gregory the Great (540-604).

Atheists like Margaret Mead margaret mead was an anglican. in fact, she was a A committed Anglican who took a considerable part in the drafting of the 1979 American Episcopal Book of Common Prayer wanted to be a god (or goddess) and create a reality to her liking. This theory is just so silly. I don't believe in god. I don't believe gods are even possible. How freakin' delusional would I have to be to want to become a god, and more, to believe that by lying I could become one? (About as delusional as the author of this article, probably.)

Atheists like Rachel Carson included, in her “masterpiece,” Silent Spring, a dedication to Albert Schweitzer (who strongly support the use of DDT which she sought to ban oh, for nothing at all's sake, Schweitzer supported the use of DDT before he knew the damage it did. so did a lot of people. changing your mind because new facts have become available is not flip-flopping, it's good thinking.), and at least another twenty-seven outright lies from her source materials. give me a link, asshat. She, however, made herself a goddess she had the power to create universes? really? and the fact that banning DDT caused unimaginable suffering and millions of deaths in the tropical parts of the Third World did not bother her at all. that is entirely irrelevant. DDT is extremely hazardous to all kinds of birds and fish. it is unacceptable to destroy entire species in an effort to prevent malaria. you would only find this acceptable if you believe that humans are more important than say, everything else on earth. and, honestly, mesquito netting. doesn't kill birds, prevents malaria.

The dialogue which can produce truth in sociology or environmentalism can only nudge us toward that truth if based upon a holy belief in honesty. how on earth could you possibly provide scientific truth if you base science on a book written thousands of years ago by bronze age desert nomads? Atheists, believing nothing holy but the playthings of their minds and whims what?, will always allow pride to trump integrity no, but apparently you will, given the complete disregard for facts and evidence represented in this article, self-interest to stand above honor repeat after me: Jesus does not make you better than anyone else. Atheists will always be tugged toward counterfeiting reality prove it. really. just one link, one study, one shred of evidence, asshat. and then taking that counterfeit currency enough with the "marketplace of ideas" analogy and using it to buy fame, wealth, power, adulation yup, that's me, swimming in fame, wealth, power and adulation- not unlike your average TV preacher, for example (especially the adulation of popularity – because they believe everyone is as hollow as they are ad hom attacks are not logic or reasoning. try again.)

The answer to rampant lying in our culture can you prove that more people lie than before, or in other cultures? can you prove that religious people lie less and atheists more? if so, why haven't you done so?, the need for a user id and password for everything, what? because not all people should have access to all information? because without a username, how would we prevent every person from getting everyone's email? it would be a little tedious sorting through billions of emails a day to find yours. the doubt in our children’s eyes about everything that must be you, because the children in my family are fine is not because God is not dead i think you mean "god is dead", but because atheists have done their best to try to murder consciousness of God how does one murder the consciousness of an omnipotent being? and how powerful must the average atheist be to achieve this?. The first social victim of this attempted homicide is truth itself, "homicide" refers to killing a human, hence "hom". the truth is not a human being, nor can it be killed but after truth dies TRUTH CANNOT DIE then those who murdered truth STOP IT or rejoiced in its convenient death NO MORE descend into an infinite maelstrom really? uh-huh,, an eternal descent you pretty much covered that with "infinite maelstrom", to a place devoid of purpose or of hope. i have both purpose and hope, as do all atheists i am acquainted with, so, your point is . . . totally invalid?