Open thread on episode #817 with Russell and Martin: Grace, love and mercy edition

Edit: On Sunday’s show we spoke with philosopher and blogger Dan Fincke, who discusses the concept of secular objective morality in these posts: Additionally, Martin referenced some YouTube videos debunking claims of advanced scientific information in the Koran. Here is the promised link to the YouTube channel.

Martin  It’s Martin (dat’s me!) and Russell fielding the hordes today, so I know you will all tune in. Comment below on the shenanigans when the dust has settled later today. In the meantime, I’ve been warming up with a couple of amusing exchanges with some Facebook creationists today. Helps to stay in fighting trim. Enjoy.

Screen Shot 2013-06-09 at 1.39.34 PM
Screen Shot 2013-06-09 at 1.52.11 PM

You gotta love the irony in the fellow’s comment about treating atheists with “grace, love and mercy” under that graphic. But I guess that’s how those terms are defined in their dark little world.


  1. says

    Transcriptions below

    Screenshot 1:

    Facebook page “We CAN and we WILL find 1,000,000 Creationists (1Mill Creation Ministries)” posts a video “100 Reasons Why Evolution is So Stupid by Dr. Kent Hovind…”

    Vector Hugo comments, “ok”

    Bandy Nisbet comments, “Love it !!”

    Ivan Villegas Hrabkovsky comments “I like it.”

    Martin Wager comments, “Why yes, who would have a more accurate understanding of a complex field of science than a convicted felonwith a fake mail order degree? XD”

    Desmond Smith comments, “Hey Martin, do you want to place bets onhow long it will take the Administrators or thise page to delete yoru comment? :)”

    Ayome Sohma comments, “You’re a conspiracy nut, Paul Talbot. I don’t think any quantity of evidence will convince you of evolution. Or gravity, for that matter.”

    Page administrator comments, “Off topic posts on taxation etc. will be deleted”

    Sam Noble comments, “It’s not off topic to talk about taxation when the man you’re propping up as a great and above all honest source of information turns out to be in prison for fraud.”

    Mark Toastimage comments, “Is it off topic to post his breathtakingly stupid and amateurish doctoral dissertation? – – Hilarious. It’s like a 5 year old wrote it.”

    The second screenshot:

    Facebook page “We CAN and we WILL find 1,000,000 Creationists (1Mill Creation Ministries)” posts a graphic that says “Atheist hate & hypocrisy… Atheist Dicky Dawkins Calls Christians Intolerant, then calls GOD ‘sadomasochistic’, ‘petty’, ‘genocidal’, ‘racist’, ‘malevolent’ – BULLY!”, and comments on the graphic, “Handling Aggressive Atheists: How should Christians respond to hostile and aggressive atheists who are intent on insulting and demolishing the truth of God?”, and links to

    Tim Whitby comments, “With grace, love and mercy – just as the Lord would have! We’re to lvoe our enemy – that’s one thing that from the outside, defines us! Not only that, it’s a command from the Lord Himself! Secondly, pray – pray hard, and for their repentance / salvat… [comment cuts off]”

    Marting Wager comments, “Here’s how: Present evidence for the existence of God. And who’s aggressive? Dawkins writes books and does speaking engagements. When he blows up a building, throws acid in a woman’s face, tries to pass laws telling people whom they can and cannot marry, and that kind of thing, get back to us. Oh, and he also doesn’t post graphics like this one featuring creationsts to his Facebook pages.”

  2. says

    In regards to Dawkins calling God intolerant, I’d be more nuanced. God is invalidly intolerant, whereas Dawkins was being validly tolerant (as if it were possibly to not tolerate God).

    Being intolerant of genocide, racism, etc, is good.

    Being intolerant of homosexuality, race, violation of traditional roles, other religions, etc, is bad.

    This is not rocket surgery.

  3. MarkWarm says

    Dawkins is the kind of guy who runs his mouth off about things he completely fails to understand. When he shrugs off his mortal coil he will face judgment and realize how wrong he was, but it will be too late for him.

  4. says

    Awesome creationist projection in your first sentence. Citation needed for your second.

    Protip: Evidence is always better than threats. Threats only indicate you have nothing to support your views with.

  5. says

    “I invented cold fusion”

    “What’s your evidence that it’s cold fusion?”

    “Because if you don’t believe me, you’ll be tortured by the demon who tortures people who don’t believe I invented cold fusion”

  6. Pinkamena Panic says

    Real specific there about what Dawkins “doesn’t understand”. Then you add on the usual “he’ll get tortured by Our Loving Bully” threat.


  7. says

    I love Christianity. It’s such a blatant swindler’s wet dream.

    They invented a Nonsensical Invisible Undetectable Undemonstrable Unevidenced Untestable Unverifiable Problem (you’re sinful and going to hell), and have invented a Nonsensical Invisible Undetectable Undemonstrable Unevidenced Untestable Unverifiable Cure to the Nonsensical Invisible Undetectable Undemostrable Unevidenced Untestable Unverifiable Problem (Jesus on a stick undergoes substitutional atonement – a concept that no one finds moral or just).

    … and for only a mere %10 of your income every week, and your mental enslavement to whatever the religious leaders want from you, you can receive this Nonsensical Invisible Undetectable Undemonstrable Unevidenced Untestable Unverifiable Cure to the Nonsensical Invisible Undetectable Undemostrable Unevidenced Untestable Unverifiable Problem!

    So sign up today!

  8. says

    Dawkins is the kind of guy who runs his mouth off about things he completely fails to understand.

    Yes, he runs his mouth off about sexism and feminism all the time, so I’ll give you that.

    When he shrugs off his mortal coil he will face judgment and realize how wrong he was, but it will be too late for him.

    There’s no tribunal of feminist goddesses waiting around to give his then-dead brain a clue, so I gotta disagree with you there.

    Oh. Did you mean about the whole religion thing? *That* he’s pretty much got a handle on.

  9. says

    Spare me the tolerance strawman. Say what you think and take your criticism like an adult. I’m so sick of crybabies. Especially crybabies who are racist, sexist, homophobic and who want to push their religion where it’s not welcome. I never hear liberals talk about tolerance. Only far right social conservatives who think they should be able to say whatever racist, sexist or homophobic crap they want without being criticized for it. Criticism is not a violation of your rights. It’s not persecution. You have no right to expect to be treated better than you treat others. Think of it as the corollary to the golden rule.

  10. says

    The difference of course is that we are all free to agree or disagree with anything Dawkins says or writes. He’s just a person. It’s only the religious who want to inflate him into our “prophet”. No thank, I don’t need one. Just people doing the work of making assertions and then proving them through evidence and reason.

  11. Stilts says

    You would never have allowed a caller to spend 20 minutes idly wandering up the garden path, agreeing with everything you say, never saying anything in any way interesting or contentious or new or insightful or baseline remarkable. Why did you imagine that doing exactly that with Daniel Fincke would be entertaining?

  12. says

    There is always someone to bitch about something. Every time Don does one of his presentations, somebody emails in “BOOOOOORRRING! Kick Don off the show! I could have looked all that up on Wikipedia!” But then, half a dozen more people write in talking about how they enjoyed Don’s presentation this week. TL;DR version: what you find uninteresting and non-insightful will be interesting and insightful to someone else, and vice versa.

  13. hypatiasdaughter says

    #4 Houndentenor

    You have no right to expect to be treated better than you treat others. Think of it as the corollary to the golden rule.

    I think this should REPLACE the Golden Rule.

  14. jdon says

    Wow. 11+ hours of talking about Kent Hovind’s “Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy in Christian Education”….

    Worl, that’s todays activities sorted.

  15. jdon says

    Hmm. After listening to the first ~15 minutes I can’t help but feel that much like Kent’s dissertation, this could have been compressed down to about 1/100th of what it is.

  16. Raymond says

    Ok. Call me stupid, but I read Kent Hovind’s doctoral dissertation. Absolutely unbelievable. Calling this man Dr. anything is an insult to the people who have worked hard to attain the prestigious title. I haven’t written a paper this badly in over 20 years. And when I did, I failed the paper. The form and grammar of this paper are atrocious. The consistency is average; but he spends so much time praising his god, that the pacing is thrown completely off. He consistently that there was no evidence to support the science (apparently the overwhelming majority of scientists have just created solutions to the world’s mysteries whole cloth and called it good). He honestly believes that the 93% of scientists who agree with the scientific facts are in on some big conspiracy against the bible.

    One example that really rubbed me wrong was his “Because of the second law of thermodynamics, organisms could not have evolved to what they are today.” For crying out loud, if a system is CLOSED it will tend toward disorder (which actually isn’t right either, but I don’t want to spend the rest of the night spouting off about this moron). When a system is not closed, aka energy is put into the system, then the second law of thermodynamics isn’t applicable. I learned this 25 years ago in high school. You know, he should really go on that show, “Are you smarter than a 5th grader.” Because he isn’t.

    But I think what blew my mind the most was that this man was a science teacher. If he believes what he wrote in that travesty of a paper, how could he possibly teach science? He believes all science is wrong.

  17. says

    Gotta love it, atheisst are bullies when Christians will CAMPAIGN for the right to bully blacks, women and gays–hell, anyone they happen to disagree with…unreal. Yeah, Martin, I got yer back, now, allow me to get in the frey. … I shall pull no punches…*rolls up sleeves and exits thread..*

  18. says

    You know what I love Martin? Going to a creationisst FB page and seeing other Atheists handling shit–lol! Ma,n I didn’t have to do a thing, just read in amusement as theists had thier butts handed to them. Mama can go to sleep well tonight knowing the garden of reason is being well tended…

  19. says

    Christians are the ones who confuse the messenger with the message. I can for example, think Dawkins leans towards the sexist end of things and still find him brilliant in his field of work. I can also watch a Clint Eastwood film without being chagrined that he doesn’t agree with my world view. Christians on the other hand, want everyone to kowtow to their vision and prop up “Soldiers of God” as inflaliable gods themselves. Sheeple to the extreme.

  20. Stilts says

    Really? Sounds an awful lot more like TL;DR: the lurkers support me. (We promise we get literally half-dozens of e-mails about how great the boring stuff is! Really! We do!)

  21. says

    I think Dawkins tweets some things that are not worded carefully and gets himself into a lot of trouble. Social commentary is not his strong suit. But that brings up the issue of quote-mining. How many times do we hear out of context quotes from Einstein and others used to “prove” something even when that something is completely out of that person’s field of expertise. No one is right all the time. Their statements have to stand on their own merit and just because person X said something doesn’t make it unquestionably true, no matter who person X is. I think this is a problem for a lot of religious people because they DO give special “truth” status to certain people and can’t understand that others do not.

  22. says

    Now that it’s summer and my schedule is not so crazy I want to watch the show live. I’d like to get the best experience with this possible, however. I had trouble viewing the Ustream on Firefox last week so I went to the Austin public access website. That worked out fine, but they don’t air the after show (which doesn’t show up in the archives or podcast either). So this week I viewed it on Ustream using Explorer (which I never use) which had better sound, but alas I was interrupted frequently with commercials. (Also, I have trouble typing in the chatroom…that’s not that big a deal but just wondered if other people had the same problem. I type 85 wpm so it’s frustrating to have to retype the same letter several times and only one at a time. Is that just my computer? I’ve never had this issue on any other chat program.)

    Is there a way to watch the Ustream feed without commercials? Someone mentioned adblock. Also, can others watch the Ustream using Firefox or some other browser? I’m just curious as I’d like the best viewing experience possible. It’s obviously a show I enjoy or I wouldn’t go to this much trouble.

  23. unfogged says

    I use IE to view the chat and use the ‘popout’ option to put it into its own window. I also use IE to view the channel 16 feed and pop that out as well so I can position the two smaller windows better. When the credits start on the main show I use IE to open the ustream channel to watch the aftershow. I get an ad when that starts but since it is just over the credits I ignore it and the aftershow doesn’t usually go long enough for another ad to interrupt so it hasn’t been worth searching out any adblock options.

    I haven’t had any issue typing in the chat; the only problem I have is that I haven’t found any way to logon each week without entering a line of text which is then not sent to the chat. Is there some command or option to do the logon that I’m not finding?

  24. Lord Narf says

    Pull up your task manager and see how your CPU usage is doing. UStream is fairly processor-intensive. If you’ve got a single-core or a weaker dual-core, you might be running into system issues. If you’ve got a quad-core of any sort, you should be okay.

  25. Lord Narf says

    Sir Isaac Newton believed in alchemy. Do you think you’re smarter than Isaac Newton, that you can reject the truth of alchemy?

  26. says

    Indeed. Many of them will scream that a Christian actor is unfairly harrassed, like Mel Gibson, and will defend the man at all costs. I was even said to be on the side of the” thought police” when I mentoned how nasty minded he was ( sexist–racist). My come back was that I wasn’t going to have him arrested for being a bigot or a racist, but that I could comment on his apalling behavior. Oh no you can’t–don’t judge others blah, blah,
    blah! YET, when Morgan Frreeman happens to mention on TV how he thinks certain comments and actions directed towards the Obama campaign were racist, some of these very SAME FOLKS were calling for boycotts against him. Thought police indeed. The reality, religion will ideologically protect it’s own at any cost, inlcuding shield child molesters ala The Catholic church, but will defame and seek to casrate anyone who presents an idea outside their own dogma, even if the infraction is minor.

  27. says

    Actually, people with complaints are the ones that tend to be vocal… so the existence of lurkers is more or less going to indicate apathy or better.

    Personally, I didn’t find the discussion all that interesting (mostly because I already agree). I didn’t, however, feel an overwhelming urge to come whine about it.

  28. says

    I think it would be lost on them… a little too much sarcasm.

    “What do you mean an undemonstrable cure to an undemonstrable problem? It’s right there in the Bible! You think all those 500 witnesses just lied?”

  29. says

    As soon as Russell informed me he was going to give an atheist blogger 15-20 minutes of the show to discuss morality and philosophy, I warned him that the chat room was going to explode with viewers screaming “WTF is this shit get this guy off raarrg!” So your reaction is entirely expected. Again, you’re no different from the people who show up to complain whenever Don is on. If you didn’t get anything out of the discussion, that’s up to you. I don’t think most of the calls we get are worth taking, but that’s the nature of live call-in TV. Viewers will like some episodes, dislike others, and everyone’s list of good vs. bad will be different.

  30. otrame says

    I happen to be in the middle of that 70 video series. He’s going sentence by sentence and explaining in detail just how wrong it is, with a great deal of snark. I’m listening to it while I prep green beans and tomatoes for the freezer.

    Just to give you an idea, the dissertation begins “hi, my name is Kent Hovind.”

    Yes, really.

    My favorite part is the list of chapters (not a Table of Contents, just a list). He lists 8 or so chapters but only actually wrote 4 . Chapter one was about the history of evolution–starting with the Fall of Satan from Heavan (which Kent estimates was about 100 years after God created Adam).

    It is all very entertaining, until you realize that this guy is taken seriously by so many people.

  31. John Kruger says

    I recall a plan to put links on this thread to Dan’s blog . . .

    I guess I can always search ’em up myself.

  32. unfogged says

    …the history of evolution–starting with the Fall of Satan from Heaven

    I can’t even begin to wrap my brain around something that fractally wrong

  33. jacobfromlost says

    I’m fairly prominent in the chat now for several years, and I thought the call was very interesting.

    And I also find Don’s presentations very insightful.

    Keep up the good work, guys.

  34. Lord Narf says

    Heh, I’ve heard people represent that as having the names of 500 witnesses who corroborated the resurrection.

    Ummmm, I’ve read it. I don’t recall seeing names. Saying 500 people witnessed it is not the same as having 500 people who witnessed it.

  35. Lord Narf says

    Christ. My eyes kept unfocusing, about half way through his response. Someone needs to learn to be a bit more concise. If the first half of your response doesn’t even come close to answering the question, you’re doing it wrong. Answer question, then elaborate.

    Mind you, I already knew he was a shitty writer. I’ve read (well, skimmed mostly) some of his books.

  36. Lord Narf says

    To quote from the site:
    What Hovind says about his education, thesis, and critiques.

    When the opponent in a debate begins using ad hominem attacks, it is an obvious signal that they are losing the debate on facts and must resort to other means to try to save face or divert attention.

    Yeah, they wouldn’t question your diploma-mill PhD if you didn’t go around calling yourself Doctor, when you haven’t really earned it. Funny how that works.

    I spent many years working on my degree and learned a lot – as anyone who has watched my debates with evolutionists or seminar series will testify.

    Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.

    Some have ridiculed the size of the school. If Harvard offers a Ph.D. degree program with only 3 or 4 students (this happens at many schools- sometimes with only 1 student), does the small number automatically mean they are not “earning their degree” or that they are attending a “diploma mill” school? Of course not! Nearly all schools offer classes by correspondence.

    It’s not the size of the school that makes it a diploma mill. It’s the fact that they accept dissertations like yours.

  37. Lord Narf says

    Well, they can just move him to the psych ward, when he’s done healing physically.

  38. Grainger says

    Heh. He does take rather a while doesn’t he?

    To summarise his points;
    ‘It was okay for God to command the slaughter of the Canaanite, including their children, because by definition anything god commands is good. The adult Canaanite children were evil so deserved to die. The children’s deaths are okay because they went to heaven afterwards. Also, it served as a symbol to remind the Israelites not to pollute their culture with pagan ideas’

  39. Lord Narf says

    Yeah, I did get down to the part at which he first invoked Divine Command Theory, which is a steaming pile of crap.

  40. says

    It’d be like if I were to say to you, “If you don’t vote for Mitt Romney, a parallel-universe version of you is going to be eaten by a grue. That grue can see into this universe, and if you vote for our man, he’ll spare your parallel-universe self.”

    This can only be compelling if you’ve been raised by parents who told you since childhood that this was a real threat.

  41. says

    Ummm, when did the show’s intent become “Make Stilts happy by doing exactly what entertains Stilts.”? The show’s name isn’t “Experienced Atheists Entertainment”, even if a portion of the show fills that role. To quote the show’s website:

    The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience.

    I think spending time on morality, from an atheist view point, is probably one of the most important parts of atheism what we’d like to theists to understand (IMHO, it’s one of the most foreign and scary concepts to them). Just because the theists think they have a non-TL;DR complete moral system doesn’t mean that morality as a subject is easy to do without being TL;DRish.

  42. John Nugent says

    Martin –

    I, for one, always enjoy Don’s presentations. I also enjoy, that they are part of an overall series. However, if they were done more often, I can see, where they would probably get old.

    The only reason I could see for Fincke’s presentation was to give yet another answer to the overblown “objective morality” trap, so loved by people, like shockofgod. However, if this was the case, I would rather watch Matt’s lecture on secular morality.

  43. Lord Narf says

    Yeah, I’ve seen a few times in which Don ran his little cart off the rails a bit, but for the most part, he gives good opinions about things that Christians do and problems with Christianity.

    His segments often go into the fuzzier arguments, which I find valuable, since that’s the sort of thing that made me reject Biblical authority, when I was 5 or 6. I didn’t exactly have the ability to construct solid, logical arguments against theism and revealed knowledge, at that age. The stories they told us in CCD (Catholic Sunday school) just felt mythical and made-up.

    I think the sort of arguments that Don often puts together are the sort to hit Christians at the sub-logical level. Perhaps that can get them to start doubting a little, to the point that they’ll be able to look at a logical argument without immediately inserting an argument from ignorance into every flawed gap of the argument.

  44. John Nugent says

    Narf –

    I thought, the reason it was a “diploma mill” was that it’s an unaccredited diploma mill. LOL

    Oh, and thanks for the breakdown on the grammar (on the other thread). Hopefully, this will win my ongoing argument with my Editors LOL.

  45. says

    Yeah, but I can agree with most on here who say that such discussions are great for theists who watch the show. I am willing to bet some of the de-conversions occur when these type of discussions arehabitually laid out. Remember, most theists do not get the hear about the atheist point of view; we are most often villified by Christians. Some Christian watchers are getting info SOLELY from places like TAE and then perhaps going to any provided links and further researching. I think the guys should do a running poll from those who can credit TAE for thier deconversion to see what aspects of the show helped. IMHO, Don’s discussions would be among the things listed as they will help the thinking man move away from the insanity that is called religion.

  46. John Nugent says

    OK. I only got about halfway through, too.

    He starts out by saying it does offend Christian sensibilities.

    He makes a superfluous jab at Dawkins.

    Then, he starts talking about how God is a god of Justice and Love.

    Does he ever get around to actually answering the question? Or am I correct in saying, he’s rambling on and on, in order to avoid actually answering the question?

  47. Lord Narf says

    Nah. Lack of accreditation isn’t a guarantee that a college is complete crap.

    Take Liberty University. They teach a lot of horrible, wrong stuff, but it’s rigorous bullshit. You have to put in a lot of work to get your degree in unscientific bullshit.

    Judging from Kent Hovind’s dissertation, Patriot University doesn’t even have that much going for it.

  48. Lord Narf says

    I thought, (strike comma) the reason it was a “diploma mill” was that it’s an unaccredited diploma mill.


  49. John Nugent says

    Forgive me, but in Christian Mythology,don’t the events in Paradise Lost come before the Garden of Eden?

    No, seriously, I’m not sure.

  50. says

    Hovind is a tool of grand design. At least WLC attempts to sound like an intellectual. He is just another shining example of how people who are prone to accept things without question or more apt to be easily led.

  51. John Nugent says

    LOL Narf.

    I am only slightly familiar with the quality of Liberty’s classes. I saw their video class in Music History, and I was unimpressed as a Musicologist. In fact, all I got from viewing it was a brief telling about Tchaikovsky’s homosexuality (because I was surprised that they even mentioned it) and the fact that, in discussing the Requiem, there was no discussion of Verdi’s atheism.

    I can only imagine what their courses in Science look like.

  52. paul clark says

    dawkins is not a big thing here the uk because ever 1 here has a right 2 free view as log u not race or sexist or a hate monger here darkins is not a big name even a house hold name he make so much money in usa hehe good on him

  53. John Nugent says

    Isn’t it sad, though? The fact that it is so enjoyable to watch, I mean. It’s also sad that we both know, the Creationist will claim to have totally demolished every argument. Just like on Youtube…

  54. paul clark says

    hehe Iu would think thay watch say 10 full shows before calling as it would save them money of the call

  55. John Nugent says

    Yeah. I just wish Hovind was a tool of grand intelligent design! (pun intended)

    I’ve watched some of Craig’s debates, and I agree. He does make attempts at presentation. Underneath, his arguments are still the same ones we hear too often, but at least he tries.

  56. Lord Narf says

    I can only imagine what their courses in Science look like.

    I’m afraid to speculate. I can only imagine that their coverage of science is barely more than an engineering treatment, covering the applications of some of it while not going into the scientific method itself and experimental science, in much depth.

    I’ve gotten the impression that for the most part, they’re kind of like a liberal arts college.

  57. John Nugent says

    While Craig is on the subject of the Conquest…

    I would love to ask him how the Israelites were able to conquer cities, centuries before the earliest known versions of those cities were built.

  58. paul clark says

    what if any witch do don’t think any sorry for putting here as still trying 2 work out how this forum work or what percentage the world is what or is it worked or sate / country religions

  59. paul clark says

    same time sad but v. v.v funny but he is smarter the 90% why he was at oxford

  60. says

    yes, but we are the ones with logic on our side, delusion is par for the course for people who believe in invisible playmates.

  61. todmann67 says

    Try reading it again, but replace Canaanite with Jew, and Jew/Israelite with Nazi. “Imagine how the Nazi soldiers must have felt going into homes and killing women and children.”

  62. mike says

    I believe I’ve posted this link before, but its so good it deserves another go! The original Irreligiosophy, namely Chuck & Leighton do a dissertation dissection of Chapter#1 of Hovind’s “paper”. It is hilarious and if you want more they do chapter#2 in Episode #96- but here is Chapter#1;

  63. EnlightenmentLiberal - formerly codemonkey says

    So, I went to youtube to catch this episode just now, and I have a question from the youtube comments. The ACA “asks” that other unrelated people do not upload full episodes? Is that right?

  64. anastasia says

    “Do unto others 20% better than you would expect them to do unto you, to correct for subjective error.”

    ― Linus Pauling

  65. graymachine says

    Hi, everyone. I just would like to start off by saying this is completely unrelated to the episode, but I have something I figured would get good feedback from axp boards, given what I’ve seen from my lurking.

    Before that, however, I thought that the community would be interested to know that the Creation Museum has started a billboard campaign in my home state (Kentucky) advertising a new “exhibit” called Dragon Invasion. The billboards feature eastern dragons and looking into it apparently the exhibit tries to show that dinosaurs are the dragons of mythology. The hilarity can be seen over at AIG.

    Onto my issue: has anyone had experience complaining about memorial crosses on highways? I called the Transportation Cabinet about several on the I-64 stretch between Louisville and Lexington; the complaint department seemed to take it seriously, and had the relevant department call me today. I was optimistic until I spent 20 minutes explaining the Establishment Clause to the lady that contacted me. Should I pursue this further? Looking into it, Kentucky has no laws concerning these things, but the Kentucky State Constitution is even more strongly worded that the US Constitution. I’m also worried that if I press this issue, since my work brings directly deals with the Transportation Cabinet, that it might threaten my employment.

  66. unfogged says

    I agree that these are inappropriate but the strength of my objection depends who put them up and why. Are these erected by or authorized by the state in any way? If so, does the state dictate that it be a cross or does it have a selection of religious and secular options that are permitted? If they are put up by individuals are they there purely for religious promotion or are they really memorials to people who died in traffic accidents adjacent to the memorial?
    Objecting to personal testaments of grief is WAY down on my list of priorities. As long as the state treats them all equally and they do not pose a hazard then I am fine with giving them a lot of slack. When I see one I don’t take it any way other than a reminder that life is short and to appreciate the people I care about while I can. If there are many in a short stretch of highway then I take it as a warning that it is a dangerous area and a call to push for remediation of the problem. They don’t strike me so much as an attempt to promote religion as they are a simple human reaction to loss. My only negative reaction to the form is that I feel sorry for people that are still caught up in the false hope that it represents.

  67. Corwyn says

    I don’t think the first reply to the Dawkins graphic was ironic. I think it was meant as a rebuke to the OP.

  68. John Nugent says

    Hypatia’sdaughter –

    First of all, I love the screenname.

    Second, thanks for posting this. Really. I would love to know who the reader is. Not only is the dissertation, itself, evidence that Hovind is an idiot, but the reader’s comments are as entertaining as they are informative.

  69. says

    I’m with unfogged on this one. We have to carefully pick our battles. Personal statements are fine, just as personal prayer is fine. State lead prayer IS NOT fine–state erected crosses–NOT fine. But again comes the why, so to that measure, the ball is in your court.

  70. says

    Give us evidence outside the bible for this fact….you know–the kind of stuff one uses in trials to convict people or crimes. You see, in a rational world, we use concrete and tangible things to substiate bold claims. Saying some invisible, power hungry diety created a torture chamber for his enemies is a pretty big claim, especially since no one living has seen such a thing. In the real world, we wouldn’t send a guy to the gas chamber for shit that is written in some book, so give us something real or keep your threats to yourself.

  71. Lord Narf says

    It’s not a threat, it’s a fact

    No it’s not. Facts can be demonstrated. It’s an assertion, and a pretty vile one, at that.

    And it’s a comma splice without closing punctuation, as well.

  72. says

    I have even seen Matt handely win a debate, I mean, just slaughter an opponent, to later hear Christians crowing about how he lost–what the fu???/ Christian delusion has no borders–it stretches on ad infinitum…

  73. says

    That is actually kewl though–simply means his work isn ot as sorely needed there I suppose…say–maybe I should book a flight to visit you ;-)–lol

  74. says

    “And it’s a comma splice without closing punctuation, as well.” Pfffftttt ahahahahahah, that was so wrong and yet oh so funny! 🙂 Thanks for that M’ Lord, much needed.

  75. says

    IIRC, this issue was touched on at some point on the The Non-Prophets, but I may be remembering incorrectly. Are these memorial crosses permanent monuments on state property or more of the temporary variety put there by mourners of people who die in traffic accidents? If the former, then there is some ground for getting them removed (I’d let the ACLU and FFRF know anonymously, they can help find a secularist for standing should a lawsuit be required and you don’t have to risk losing your job). If the latter, then I think it’s just considered litter (as long as it doesn’t become more permanent).

  76. jdoran says

    “Claims made without evidence can be disregarded without evidence.” – John 20:29

  77. Lord Narf says

    Just thought I’d point it out. He clearly can’t be helped, logically speaking, so I thought I could possibly contribute something to his grammatical education.

  78. John Nugent says

    Martin –

    I just looked at the Creationist FB page…

    All lines not having some form of “All Hail the Almighty Kent Hovind” have been deleted.

    And the page mod has responded to your Amelkites, saying (oh what a surprise!) that defending Amelkites is the same as defending Nazis.

  79. says

    What cowards, there was nothing at all in the comments that was worthy of deletion. I am not in the least bit surprised however. Religious nuts know they don’t have real answers so they chose to ignore valid criticism and resort to ad hominem attacks. People with intelligence can see what they are doing, which is why many are leaving religion in droves.

  80. John Nugent says

    Just read some more of the site. It’s obvious that the site is written by a layman, rather than someone, who has actually studied Theology and Church History… So much in his comment responses, which flies in the face of everything taught in Seminaries, these days.

  81. Lord Narf says

    Wait, the Amelkites are the moral equivalent of the Nazis? What the hell? How can someone say something that stupid and be willfully oblivious to the parallels?

    I think someone is horribly confused about which group in that scenario was the bunch of marauding, genocidal maniacs who claimed that Gott was mit uns.

  82. Lord Narf says

    Err, Amalekites, I mean. I thought that looked wrong, when I typed it. Too few syllables. Check THEN submit, dumb-ass.

  83. says

    Narf–go over there and school that fool on what seminaries do indeed teach with links and such. He may delete it and crap but the point will be made (you probably know more on this particular subject than I do)

  84. John Nugent says

    Narf, I’ll second this. My alma mater had, at one point, been a Seminary, so we were still required to take Theology courses. This is where I learned of the various edits to the Bible, not only since it was compiled, but the known ones (was it at least six) during the time period of the OT. The Mod there seems to think, everything written is the First Draft. But I don’t know what else Theologians have come up with in the past twenty years.

  85. Lord Narf says

    I dunno. I’m not in the seminarian part of the discussion. My father is the one who went to Catholic seminary, not me. I’ll let John handle that part.

  86. John Nugent says

    I just went back over there. Someone already listed a number of known edits to the NT. I added a list of just a few known edits to the OT dating from ancient times to Martin Luther.

    The mod calls such arguments zeal to disprove God. But I doubt that it takes much zeal to accomplish that.

  87. Lord Narf says

    Tell him to go ask a Biblical scholar. Heh. It’s not like this stuff isn’t widely known. Fundies just choose to remain willfully ignorant of it.

    What does he have to say about the bit at the end of Mark … 16:9-20? That’s a very well known later addition.

  88. John Nugent says

    I only did what I could remember, at a moment’s notice, from twenty years ago. Sadly, i couldn’t do more. But someone else had already done the bulk of the work, anyway. I do not really feel that qualified, either, as I’ve only studied and then TA’d in the Religion and Philosophy Dept. My own primary area of study was Musicology and Composition, over in the Arts Dept.

    I made the mistake of reading some of the earlier posts, until I got to a post about Aronra’s challenge to Ham (Narf, you’ll remember this, as we’ve both commented about this on Aronra’s blog). It was not complimentary, as you’d imagine.

    I can’t bear to read the page, any further.

  89. John Nugent says

    That was in the other posts (I am SO thankful, to whoever that was).

    The Mod hasn’t commented on it. At least, he hadn’t last I was there.

  90. says

    Yeah, cause who needs things like facts and for Zeal–well holy crap, one SHOULD have zeal in ones effort to prove something dangerous to be false…Man, do not even waste another keystroke on this genuis–he’s a lost cause. E’gads if igornorance is bliss, this dude must be in eternal ecstacy…smh

  91. John Nugent says

    An addition, which has caused more harm (probably) than all the others. You’re close enough to the Southern Appalachians to know exactly what I mean…

  92. says

    I love tossing out that bit in Genesis about Lot having it on with his daughters and creating whole nations from incest bred sons. I have not met a Christian yet who even knows that is in there–NOT ONE–and many claim it ain’t even in there. Only a handful actually checked the scripture, but won’t comment on the story itself. It’s a grand biblical pimp slap every time. Thing is, that creationist idiot would not only not check the scripture, he would probably claim the devil put in in there if he did find it. What a tool. LOL!

  93. Lord Narf says

    I always wonder what is going through the heads of people who say things like that.

    Do they think we need the many known forgeries that are in the New Testament in order to reject it? I don’t care if it had been written by the hands of the apostles whose names are attached to the Gospels … which it’s not. Even if the texts had been written down as the events supposedly took place and were perfectly preserved to the present version of the Bible, they’re still myths told by followers of a cult, if they’re even that reliable. That fact that several of the letters are outright forgeries and that there are multiple forgeries inserted into the anonymous Gospels, which were written down decades after the fact, is just the glaze on the mud pie that is the Bible.

  94. Lord Narf says

    An addition, which has caused more harm (probably) than all the others. You’re close enough to the Southern Appalachians to know exactly what I mean…

    I had a few clients waaaaaaaay out in the mountains of North Carolina, past Winston Salem, in my last job. It’s pretty scary out there, yeah. I try to stay in the Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill) or the Charlotte area, unless I’m going out-of-state.

  95. John Nugent says

    Ignorance is bliss….

    Yeah, one of the things, I actually miss about Religion. Sometimes. But it is also one of the reasons, I’m glad to have left. Now, I can spend my few remaining years discovering all those things, i was told to ignore, before.

  96. John Nugent says

    Alicia –

    My favorite is, that God had to travel on foot to see if the rumors about Sodom and Gomorrah were true, before He destroyed them.

    Kinda destroys “Omniscience” and “Omnipresence” in one fell swoop.

  97. John Nugent says

    Ah Charlotte! I toyed with the idea of moving to Charlotte, when I was making the LOOONG drive there, four times a year, to the Opera. Beautiful city. Especially downtown. Pretty fond of the Triangle area too, but I don’t know it as well.

    You will understand, though, as per our recent conversation about the Christian Nation crowd and their progress in NC, I am happy my work took me to the City of Angels, instead.

  98. John Nugent says

    The Dillahunty/Slick debate comes to mind, immediately. And all Matt was trying to do, when it broke down, was help Slick fix a bloody false dichotomy. Problem was, Slick’s entire argument seemed to hang on having it, there, so he merely denied it was there.

    Sorry, Mr. Slick. I’ve seen your syllogism. It was there.

  99. says

    I was afraid I’d lose my “bliss” as well, but as an atheist, I am actually happier. I had no stumbling blocks for example, to writing and animating erotica…or for exploring my bi-sexual nature. Prior, I prayed every time I had a sexual thought and felt the need to berate myself for every natural, sexual urge, especially towards a woman. Now, while I never became promiscuous–I was a bit more liberated and came to recognize that sex, with a nod towards the obvious hazards (both emotional and physical), is not evil–it just “is”…very freeing. I also found it was okay, as a woman, to get angry or to complain; to think about myself from time to time, to be flawed and sad…which in turn, made me strive to be a better person in a REAL way. I am waaay happier that I ever was under the restraints of religion. Hallelujah, I am free at last–lol.

  100. says

    Yeah, what was up with Yahweh’s Mafioso like need to have “eyes and ears” on the ground, or underlings to do his bidding. For real d’ oh? What is sad is for the truly “devout” these arguments are deflected like bullets off Kevlar. All l can say to that is, “Baaaaa’…

  101. says

    Yes, these are the very same folks who denounce the great thinkers of the day only to exonerate and slob all over them centuries later.

  102. John Nugent says

    Yeah, I had the same problem. It was hard enough, as a perfectly normal teenager in Junior High and High School. trying to pay attention in class, when there would always be a very appealing girl a couple seats down…. OK that’s out of my mind. Gotta pay attention…. Oh no! I had an impure thought about that girl a couple seats down. I have to pray for forgiveness, in case the Rapture happens before school lets out…. OK now that that’s done, it’s time to pay attention to… wow, that girl is beautiful… And the cycle would just go on and on.

    I got to where I could pay attention to teachers while still dividing thoughts to the girls, but prayer is supposed to take ALL one’s attention.

    And all this for what I know now to be normal human impulses, the repression of which can cause certain mental instabilities, later. I’ll agree with Hitchens. Religion poisons everything.

  103. Lord Narf says

    Yup. I’m seriously contemplating bailing out of here for Chicago, with the direction this state is headed, after the 2012 elections. We’ve most likely got at least 8 years of Republican dominance in both the state senate and house, plus the governorship. This state is going to hell.

  104. Lord Narf says

    Ohhhhhhhhhhhh. Nah, I was berating my own misspelling of it.

    I was raised Catholic. We keep most of our abuse self-focused.

  105. says

    And don’t you find now that without religion you can merely reflect on the girl’s attractiveness, or your own attraction, and move on…I mean, it’s not like when you are around said chicka you aren’t musing but you know what I mean–the intensity is taken to a natural, even place. Far from creating depravity, I think removing religion from being the supervisor of sexual impulses actually makes us LESS inclined to focus on impure thoughts and act on them in an unhealthy way. Like, if I see a woman I say to myself, “Oh my god she is hawt, ” Perhaps visualize said girl naked–move on–no harm, no foul. No fixation or drive to take the idea anywhere. Whereas when I was religious, I’d fixate not only on the attraction but on the fact I had such thoughts–vicious cycle.

  106. John Nugent says

    Correct, because if one is fixating on the sinfulness of the attraction, one is – of course – still fixating on the attraction.

    Then again, a few of them had already expressed interest in something physical (I wish I still had some form of attractiveness LOL), so it is only hypothetical that I would have moved on.

  107. John Nugent says

    And of course, since I was more interested in pleasing God than in sex, the homosexual rumors started, inevitably. So, not only was I a subject of typical teenage anti-gay bullying, every girl I asked out acted as though I wanted her to be a beard or something.

    So, I think I can safely accuse Religion of ruining my social life in my formative years.

  108. John Nugent says

    Narf –

    Who was it, who made the infamous speech there, which boiled down to “It is your duty, to show non-Christians the way out of the State?”

    And is this a-hole still in political office?

  109. says

    I say I was lucky enough to fall away in my twenties (not a proclaimed atheist but no longer religious either) and had some pretty fun escapades. Now I am all married and stuff, but since my days of debauchery are behind me, I am very happy with the state of things. I think all younglings need to “sow their wild oats” guys and girls alike–it make settling down almost a welcome respite. Besides not doing so causes bitterness. My hubby wasn’t religious per se but he was a good boy his whole life ( he was a virgin when we met) and upon hearing my tales practically weeps for not having done more in his youth.

  110. John Nugent says

    I started falling away in my twenties, as everything I was getting out of TA’ing in the Religion Dept was something, I soon realized all ministers knew, but they were afraid to tell their flocks (like the various edits of the Bible). Then, as an assignment in American Lit, I read the Introduction to Age of Reason. It was incredible! I had no idea, at the time, that anybody had ever questioned Christianity! Needless to say, I ordered the entire pamphlet and quickly devoured it.

    But I was still, very much Theist. Well, Deist, we can say, as Paine’s arguments expressed exactly what I had been thinking, up to that point. But it was also at this time, I set out in my attempts to finally find the evidence for the existence of God, once and for all.

    So here we are, twenty years later. To this date, the very best “evidence” for the existence of God is only mildly compelling. And every person of Faith, to whom I have made inquiries, still falls back on the Appeal to Faith. Even now, they still fall back on the Appeal to Faith.

    So in those days, I thought, OK. That’s valid.

    Then one day, I attempted to create a syllogism, based upon Jefferson’s letter to Peter Carr, where he argues the value of Reason over Faith. I thought, I had noticed an error in the argument, so I attempted to see, where the argument would lead, if it was not included. It was not my intention, but the logical steps lead to a conclusion that, from the Theist view, Faith is actually disobedience to God. So, by commanding Faith, God is commanding man to disobey Him.

    Therefore, Faith is irrelevant to the question, and one must rely solely upon the evidence.

    There is no reliable evidence for the existence of God.

    Therefore, in good conscience and honesty, I cannot believe in a God. It may be the case, compelling evidence could be discovered tomorrow, in which case, I’ll probably agree to the possibility. However, if the Theistic scientists have never found it in their history from the Renaissance until present, I doubt any scientist will do so.

    Of course, they say, I just want to sin. No, my atheism comes from twenty years of active pursuit of God, studying Historical evidence, Archaeological evidence, and even looking at the Scientific evidence. I am an atheist, because there is no reason to be anything else. Being able to sin? Well, that’s just one of the perks LOL Just kidding. I’m still a good boy. But for other reasons.

  111. John Nugent says

    This was meant as a reply to Alicia’s comment, immediately above. I seem to have hit the wrong reply button (LOL). Is there any way to move this into that particular thread? Thanks.

  112. Lord Narf says

    Errrrrr, someone said that in a speech? Recently? I’m sure there have been plenty of nuts in minor positions who have said something along those lines, but I’m not remembering anyone offhand.

  113. unfogged says

    Gotta pay attention…. Oh no! I had an impure thought about that girl a couple seats down. I have to pray for forgiveness

    Was it really that intertwined much of the time? As somebody who never believed, at least past age 4 or 5 and I don’t remember before then, I guess I always assumed that believers compartmentalized it more than that. It is a bit of a revelation to me that everyday thoughts would constantly be evaluated like that.

    in case the Rapture happens before school lets out

    That was an actual, everyday concern? Religion really is child abuse. Very little is more immoral, more purely evil, to me than warping a child’s perspective like that.

  114. John Nugent says

    Narf –

    During the King Controversy, a couple years ago. I think it was either a State Legislator or one of NC’s Congressmen, but I am not sure, at the moment.

  115. says

    Oh, I hate it when they pull that “You just want to sin” crap! As if being religious has caused one person NOT to sin and some of them quite happily with little remorse. What sin am I supposedly wanting to indulge in? I am law abiding, pay my taxes, had my kiddos in wedlock and I don’t cheat on mah hubby. Not robbing any banks, don’t lie to my friends…I mean, sure far from perfect but I ain’t plotting to rape and pillage. Those are the folks I often look at askance and wonder, are they the fools who say they need a book to keep them in line? Invisible bad guys and eternal punishment to make them be good to one another? You should be more afraid of those idiots than any atheist.

  116. says

    @ unfogged,

    Oh, my friend, you had no idea how bad it gets. I used to go into my prayer closet–a LITERAL closet–and pray after having any kind of sexual thought. I’d pray for days if I masturbated. You have NO IDEA how liberating dabbling in erotica has been. So many people look down on this particular style of writing, and for some maybe it is just a way to “get attention”, but for me, it has been very, very healing and freeing. Yes, in a way I was abused, and mentally scarred (and I am willing to wager that most sexual deviants had a hyper religious upbringing where their own natural urges were said to be evil and bad). When I first decided to investigate the world of literary porn, my hubby, who knew my past, was very supportive–still is. He has remarked on how it has changed my perspective, confidence and such. No one should have to overcome scars from observing normal feelings and urges. I mean, it wasn’t like I wanted to rape kittens–I just had normal feelings. I agree with Matt in that I think sexuality is not as simple as hetero and homo, that there are gradients, and this is also natural (most of the folks in my world are bi-sexual like me) LOL. I mean, to know I won’t get struck down by lightening for admitting I like sex and/or think about it is awesome. It has almost become something of a cause for me, especially with women who are doubly so made to feel ashamed of what is essentially a natural, and in the right circumstances, very spiritual thing.

  117. John Nugent says

    Alicia –

    Gee, I think, I’ve made a friend, here.

    I would like to see the figures, but I have heard things in the past about a correlation between hyper-religious upbringing and sexual deviance or even sexual dysfunction. I have downloaded some articles on the matter, and I’ll probably look them over this weekend, to see if there is anything to it.

    Unfogged –

    I think Alicia said it best. You don’t know the half of it. Especially in the super-duper-hyper-religious pockets of this Country. In fact, there were many things, I was taught, which has proved harmful. I’ve mentioned the Impure Thoughts=Adultery/Rape thing. There is also, if you hear a swear word, you are thereby guilty of uttering it, yourself, as you had to think about it, even subconsciously, if you heard it. And my personal favorite was a ban on fiction, as all writers are professional liars, and to read it is to condone such behavior. All Science texts are, of course, regarded as fiction, as well, as they tend to contradict the Bible.

  118. John Nugent says

    By the way, Alicia –

    I would like to talk to you sometime, to see if there are approved formats, character archetypes, etc., in erotic fiction. I wouldn’t mind dabbling in it a little, myself.


  119. John Nugent says

    Narf –

    Unless the Catholics are pulling the lightning card, when someone dares mention the non-Divinity of Jesus (LOL)

    Just kidding. My Agent is a cradle Catholic, so I hear it a lot. Mostly in jest. (LOL)

  120. Lord Narf says

    I remember a big stink about some stuff that the local government in King, NC was doing. I particularly took note of it, because I had 2 or 3 clients in King. There was a huge cluster of them on the northwest side of Winston-Salem, since the Triad office is on that corner of Winston-Salem.

    I don’t remember any details about what the person said, though. I’d have to go do Google searches to find out anything about it, myself. The story didn’t last very long, and not many people paid any attention to the person.

  121. Lord Narf says

    Lightning card? Not following you.

    I probably abuse the Catholic church more than many, because I was forced into being a weekly-mass Catholic, while being an unbeliever from the age of 5 or 6. I’ve got a bit of annoyance about it, still.

    I was an altar boy for 5 or 6 years, just so I would have something to do during the monotony of mass. I didn’t know what sort of danger to which I was exposing myself and certain parts of my anatomy, at the time.

  122. says

    I write graphic novels and create animations of said novels, mah stuff is here: — I think there is a way to contact me there (still working on said site). I’d post the business email but I am not sure if that would be frowned upon; don’t wanna get banned–lol…

    I dabble in a sub genre called paranormal romance (Grecian mythological fantasy themes primarily). Was doing so before the phrase “paranormal romance” was even coined via a series of pen and ink novels called LA PETITE MORT. I hate using the PR term however, since most equate it with kiddie shit like TWILIGHT…

  123. Lord Narf says

    Well, I guess there was that one priest who took out a hit on the altar boy he had been raping, after the kid went to the authorities.

  124. John Nugent says

    Tender, loving care, as Ratzinger put it.

    Yeah, by the lightning card, I meant the common wisecrack of “Better be careful. Go’d got his thunderbolt ready,” or something like that. It’s usually only said in jest, as I mentioned. But I only seem to find it among Catholics.

  125. Lord Narf says

    Hmm, maybe a regional thing. That’s a new one by me.

    Or perhaps it’s generational. I’m 37. Didn’t you say you’re a bit older than that?

  126. John Nugent says

    Alicia –

    Just emailed you at the addy from your website.

    I shall read some of these, sometime.

    And I understand about Twilight. I tried to read it. I really did. You are correct. Childish shit.

  127. says

    I had to watch I think it was ECLIPSE ( the one where she has her kid and dies) because one guy I contract with wanted an animated sex parody. I figured, well, to paraody I need to watch the damn thing. OMG! OMG! My eyes–the burning–the nausea…hours of my lfie I CANNOT get back. Poorly acted, horribly written, and was the director half aseep? Too bad I can’t sue for emotional distress. To make matters worse–I had nothing–I couldn’t parody the damn thing cause I couldn’t find meat to cling to, esp for something sexy, and said so–I ended up getting another asisgnment.

    I have friends who love that stuff and I try not to give them crap for it (to each their own)–on the other hand, I have to question their sanity…lol

    By the bye, it is so awesome to meet a fellow writer. Hum. I am willing to bet a running TAE blog poll would show most of us free thinkers are creatives or computer techs.

  128. xxxxxx says

    …not merely 500 nameless, unvalidatable, unverifiable witness claims — but a single claim made by a single, solitary guy (Paul) attesting to the existence of these five hundred nameless, unvalidatable, unverifiable witnesses….

    Imagine the wonders each of us could accomplish in life (and after death), if one can simply afford to hire a PR mavrick like Paul to write our post-mordem biography!

  129. unfogged says

    As much as I enjoy, and usually agree with, Jeff Dee’s rants I think he was off the mark on this one. He equated the memorial crosses with Denis’ idea of erecting “fuck you crosses” and they are just not the same.
    If I were maintaining a section of highway I’d have respect for a memorial cross out of my empathy for somebody’s desire to mark the spot of their loss. I might find the form meaningless and even ridiculous but I know that it is the theists way of representing the same thing that I’d feel and that deserves consideration. I’m fine with the state workers, and the state, showing deference to them. They may be on public land but their primary purpose is private and deeply personal.
    If a theist erected a cross on public land that wasn’t a personal memorial, whether it was supposed to be a tribute to accident victims or just an expression of religious belief then that should be removed immediately. That would be the equivalent of the “fuck you crosses” from the NPR episode. The intent is to create a public spectacle to push an agenda and whether it is a theist or an atheist the perpetrator is in the wrong.
    It would be reasonable for the state to have limits on the size and construction methods for the personal memorials and even time limits on how long they can remain but as long as the state is even-handed in how they treat them I do not see any point to a lawsuit. It reminds me of Patrick Greene’s nonsense about suing over the bumper sticker he found offensive.

  130. Nude Allover says

    I like Don, but while his talks are fairly informative, he is a bit low key. Don needs to do a segment using word sound effects (Pow! Bam! Zowie!) and emphasize what he says in an over-the-top way. have fun with it. don’t be afraid to laugh at his own delivery. Try it once Don and see what happens. Could catch on. hehe