In December and early January, I thought Hillary Clinton was the stronger and better candidate. Then came the aftermath of New Hampshire when Hillary and Bill went into the gutter with sleaze politics.

We had Bob Johnson alluding to Obama's unmentionable something. Then the Clinton campaign insulted our intelligence asserting that Johnson was refering to Obama's community organizing. Yes, the community organizing is so sordid it can't be mentioned in polite society.

Bill has since gone from campaign stop to campaign stop dropping poison pills until today, when he dropped the bomb. The Clintons have engaged in nothing short of the most despicable scorched earth politics, politics that has no place in the democratic party, and Bill Clinton has worn out his welcome in that party. That may be harsh to say of a former president, but most former presidents conduct themselves with a modicum of dignity and decorum.

The Clintons will divide the party and the country if it means that they are the last ones standing. They may have hoped their campaign of hate and division wouldn't generate any backlash. But Hillary Clinton has lost my vote, and she will never get it back.

The church steals a page from the devil's playbook.

And there's all sorts of quotables, like:
Yeah, Jesus isn't getting it done anymore. We need bonuses and things we actually care about! Suicide Bombings are fun!Just like a time share sales pitch.

You can also watch the mental gymnastics as these so called values voters justify providing age inappropriate material to minors:Pity the child with the parent who doesn't send their kid to the church's Halo party because they don't want him to be corrupted.

The church has lost. And which place of worship allows me to play the original San Andreas?

And we should really put parental advisory stickers on the church door.

NYT reviews the creation museum. Aside from the obvious, it seems dinosaurs ate oblong golf balls. And:Does that mean the museum is boring and will break down several times a day?

You would think someone that constantly lectures people on their moral failings (and considers himself a moral beacon without peer on earth) would avoid making morally repugnant statements. You would be wrong. The Pope's problem is he has an undeserved reputation as a moral arbiter, and he's trying to milk it for everything its worth. It must be comforting to know that you can rationalize any crime by papering over it with facile and asinine comments. It must be nice to condemn violence but minimize the violence inflicted on native populations in the name of God. I assume the Jews were "silently longing" for Jesus as well, and that's why the Catholics made them "audibly scream" at the hands of the Inquisition. Nothing like a little purification by torture.

But then, the Pope is not above rationalizing his crimes or the crimes of his church. When confronted with molestation claims, the Pope: That's right! You tell him, Pope! You don't ask such questions because they reveal the Church in its true light, a place where temporal power and an undeserved reputation get you special immunity from your crimes. It's fitting that Maciel received a slap on the wrist by the virtuous souls at the Vatican. The rationalization there? Doubtlessly, the altar boys were "silently longing" to be abused.

In the latest in a string of increasingly bizarre and irrational attacks, the Vatican now says that criticizing the Pope is "terrorism."

What raised the Vatican's ire? A comedian describing his differences with the church:

Frankly, the Pope can go to hell. This is not terrorism, this is disagreement. It is legitimate criticism. You are not immune from criticism of the stupid positions you take. What exactly did Pinochet and Franco do to deserve a Church funeral? Oh. Right. they killed (many, many) other people, not themselves.



Talk about telling only half the story. The less glamorous truth is that the Pope and his subordinates are objectively disordered, hate filled cranks. When the Vatican health secretary compares people to cockroaches what else are we supposed to think? Is that not terrorism? By your own definition, is it not terrorism to call people iniquitous, evil, intrinsic moral evils, part of an "ideology of evil" (sensing a pattern here?), or want to legalize evil, or are without any social value, caricatures, perverts, violent child abusers, gravely immoral, part of a virus on society, counterfeits, "prisoners," anarchists, disordered, modern day Caligulas, self-indulgent, unnatural, that the concept of sexual orientation is "erroneous," or criticizing a media for making people "look normal."

People grow or diminish in moral stature by the words which they speak and the messages which they choose to hear. This criticism is so pointed and constant that its only purpose is to dehumanize people. It is not a cogent disagreement, such as Andrea Rivera's critique. The church says that criticizing people is terrorism. By that standard, how is the message of the Catholic Church not terrorism? The truth is that the Church wants the right to criticize peop;e it dislikes in the most strident terms possible while being immune from criticism itself.

Twisted? What needs to be twisted? Do the remarks of Cardinal Amato need to be twisted to create tension? His own words are vile enough as it is.

Bizarre. I wonder what led him to connect the two. Neither of which is entirely relevant.

His talking points are also woefully behind the times and irrelevant:
That might be an issue if this was a court decision. This was a legislative proposal. Since Mr. Letourneau is a member of the legislature, you might think he'd know that.

Iran's Uncomfortable Women

The TV is blaring the news that women are just so happy that the police are telling them what they should wear. The women are kept against their will in buses for five hours to pressure them into changing their scandalous ways.

As one woman tells it, Aw. Isn't that thoughtful? They're just thinking of her best interests.

Oh. And men can't wear shorts either.

Wiccans get headstone symbol

The "evil" of "so called civilized nations." When Joseph Ratzinger warned about increasing irrational and violent reactions he was talking about the church.

Dinesh D'Souza surveys the informed opinion of the blogosphere and does not like what he sees: It's the truth. Since when did accuracy become a liability?

He continues:
Really, Dinesh. You are responsible for heaping such shrieking abuse as The Enemy At Home.
I can only imagine the deeper malady that is hidden by such malignancy. No, wait, I can picture it. Just look what reading your book did to Ma and Pa Kettle:

They got open, pus filled sores and everything! They have become jaundiced pariahs with an obvious brains deficit. Your affliction--your deeper malady--is surely unparalleled in the annals of medical history.

...on limbo

I love how they put "serious" in quotes. Serious grounds to hope? What does that mean?
So they're agnostics? It sounds like a slippery slope. They're rejecting centuries of tradition that served humanity well for an uncertain future and an anything goes mentality.

I kid, but if Richard McBrien and Thomas Reese are correct, the church is finally taking a moral stand. Yes, it took them a while.

With his typical lack of taste or class, Dinesh D'Souza asks where are the atheists when bad things happen and follows it up with Dawkins' Message to Mourners: Get Over It.

We might ask what message "people of God" bring to the discussion during tragedy. Noted evangelist and man of God, Franklin Graham started off well, stating, "First of all, we know that God loves us and God cares for us." Graham went downhill from there, and three seconds later he was denigrating any non-christian victims, saying, "[God] has provided a way for us to be with him in heaven and that?s through his son Jesus Christ."

That's right. If you get killed by a gunman and you haven't accepted Christ in your life you're not with god in heaven, you're in Hell. That's the message a sleazy and slick opportunist--excuse me, man of god-- like Graham brings to the table at a time of grief and solemnity. Graham couldn't get through a five minute TV appearance without resorting to his routine, exclusionary gospel of intolerance. He was torn between his vile comments and expressing sympathy. That's the message this person of faith brings to the table.

Graham then turns to D'Souza's main pont, and the problem of evil: How does this man of god deal with evil? By castigating people, survivors, families, and saying you will be judged.

That's the magnitude religious language brings to the table. Here's a tip Dinesh: Try passing off this religious message at a memorial, try telling people that their loved ones killed 24 hours before, that those innocents, those victims are standing in judgment before god and they might go to hell. You do that Dinesh and watch the projectile vomit and people fleeing from the place.

Somehow I think atheists could do better than victimizing people again. Somehow, I get the feeling that atheists wouldn't tell families that their loved ones are in hell because they didn't accept Christ. Dinesh asserts that religions have an easier time explaining why evil things happen than atheist do but he doesn't explain why. But at bottom, atheism has an easier time reconciling good and evil because it doesn't have to reconcile an all powerful, good and benevolent entity that somehow allows evil things to happen. Religious people contort themselves trying to explain it. Graham says Satan did it, but God sat back and let people get murdered.

Hey, Dinesh, Pal, you go tell people that God let people get killed so that the people will learn that they need to love god. That's your answer, and you declare it a good thing. Dinesh, you're not Martha Stewart and murder is not a decorated box of cookies. You're so desperate for answers, you grasp at whatever demented idea pops in your head, regardless of what it really says about the essence of God. You say atheism gives "indifference" but is the indifference of a universe without god and satan worse than your conception of a callous and desperate God that lets people die for his own validation? That's blunt, but you put the question out there, and its your own proposed conception of god.

Even Graham is more honest and more moral than what you allow. He admits he doesn't have all the answers. And the answer certainly isn't "These things happen so Dinesh D'Souza can attack atheists and Franklin Graham can attack people with other religious beliefs." Some members of the military tried that to denigrate Pat Tillman's family and their quest for the truth, and it was as depraved as you're doing here, Dinesh.

Is that a good enough summation of an atheist's perspective on evil?

There's such a thing as asking too much.

Cleric Sets Up Islamic Court in Pakistan
They burned Free Willy and called it porn.

They also seem to have a clear definition of what "Jihad" is:

A couple weeks ago, Catholic Archbishop Silvano Tomasi told the UN that, ?One cannot consider the ridicule of the sacred as a right of freedom? and:

He urged that the council, which reviews human rights of all 191 U.N. member states, take up the issue of developing ?mechanisms or instruments? that would ?defend the message of religious communities from manipulation and would avoid a disrespectful presentation of their members.?

Tomasi is getting his wish. Pakistan is defending religion from disrespect and ridicule by investigating/charging an eleven year old with blasphemy.