Thursday, 13 June 2013

Electronic Cigarettes - The BMA abandons evidence based science in favour of speculation.

Dr Vivienne Nathanson
I've just watched Dr Vivienne Nathanson, Head of Science and Ethics at the BMA on ITV News (12 June 2013).

She was advising people to stop using Electronic Cigarettes because of health worries.

I used to be quite a heavy smoker, smoking 20-30 cigarettes a day. I was an expert at giving up smoking having given it up dozens of times over the previous 30 years. I knew it was bad for my health, my wallet and the health of the people around me.

When I breathed deeply I could hear a wheezing noise. I would get out of breath simply walking up a single flight of stairs. I could run... for about 30 seconds... before I was in severe respiratory distress. I had a perpetual cough and would cough up alarmingly thick dark phlegm. I smelled and I was spending a small fortune on my filthy anti-social habit. I was approaching 50 and I was a prime candidate for a serious smoking related illness, or worse.

I'd read all the books on how to stop smoking, Motivational material, I'd been on the government stop smoking scheme, I'd tried patches, gums and sprays. Many of them worked after a difficult struggle... for a while. But within weeks or sometimes months, I'd have a crisis and be back to square one.

I know withdrawal symptoms are different for different people, but let me explain how it was for me.

If you've had children, you will understand this. Imagine taking your young toddler to go shopping in a large department store in an unfamiliar town. Your attention is distracted for a moment, when you look round, your child is no longer by your side. Instant panic hits. You look up and down the isles of goods and your child is nowhere to be seen.  That awful feeling is what hits me in a withdrawal attack, and it hits every 5 minutes, all day. It wears you down, you can't concentrate on everyday things and you are to say the least, not the best of company.

For those of you without children, It's the feeling you get while driving your car on a clear road, It's a cool dry day, your favourite music is on loud and you're driving way too fast.. You look in your rear-view mirror to see blue flashing lights and an "ECILOP" sign right on your tail. Intense anxiety rush. Imagine that feeling every 5 minutes, all day.

Ever wonder why a newly stopped smoker is so grouchy and irritable?

The intensity of that feeling diminishes over the following weeks but it never goes away.

One day in 2007 I discovered Electronic Cigarettes or eCigs. They looked promising. The advertising said you get your nicotine hit with no tar, no nasty chemicals, no carcinogens, no burning substances but it had the same feel as smoking a cigarette without the well documented health risks.

This is the device I am using today (The Odyssey)
It looked too good to be true. I did a little research and found that other than the nicotine, all the substances used in the product were approved for use in food and cosmetics with no known health risks. Plus the nicotine was not in itself harmful at the dosage used in Electronic Cigarettes.

I bought one, with the expectation of being a little disappointed.

The complete transition from cigarettes to the eCig was immediate, obviously with no withdrawal symptoms. The sensation of smoking was quite realistic. It greatly exceeded my expectations. This was a smoking alternative that was sustainable, vastly less harmful and a fraction of the price of cigarettes.

Over the following weeks, my lungs started to clear. I no longer wheezed, no more coughing, no more yucky phlegm, I didn't smell like an old ashtray. On public transport, I no longer had to go through contortions to avoid breathing on someone and see them turn their head in disgust. I could talk to people face to face without embarrassment.

I did try a cigarette a couple of weeks after the switch over, it tasted OK but it felt like it was full of pollutants, whereas my eCig tasted clean and unadulterated with junk. From day one, I never really felt the need to go back to smoking cigarettes.

After a year my lungs were clear, I could run up stairs for several floors and recover quickly. This was an unthinkably dangerous thing to do just 12 months before. I could now run in the local fun-run and actually enjoy it.

I can smoke my eCig at my desk, thus gaining at least an extra hour of productive work time that was previously wasted at the back of the car park several times a day, often in the rain.

I'm now 53 and I recently had a medical for insurance purposes. I blew the Peak Flow Meter to the maximum limit of the scale.

I genuinely believe my health would have deteriorated had I continued smoking cigarettes. I also believe Electronic Cigarettes have probably saved my life or at least saved me from an unpleasant early death. I no longer worry about dying from a smoking related illness. In fact I feel fitter than I have felt in many years. I'm now physically capable of effective exercise.

I would urge all smokers to give these devices a try. Yes, I'm biased, Yes I'm now an eCig evangeliser, but I have damn good reason to be. I struggled for years trying to permanently break the tobacco habit. eCigs allowed me to do just that, with zero effort. Today I would have been spending £10 a day feeding my cigarette addiction. A good quality eCig costs less than 10 days supply of regular cigarettes and then about 50p-70p a day running costs.

However, Today I saw Dr Vivienne Nathanson, Head of Science and Ethics at the BMA advising people to stop using eCigs because they could be a health risk.    WTF.....

As an engineer with a science based background, I know that good scientific conclusions are Evidence Based. Bad science is based on speculation, personal bias and guesswork.

The evidence I see is that millions of people around the world are dying from smoking related illnesses. This is not disputed within the medical community.

The evidence against Electronic Cigarette usage on health grounds is practically non existent. When I say evidence, I mean "Good Science" independent evidence, not the evidence produced by the Tobacco industry lobby or government financed studies paid for by the politicians who are losing out on millions of pounds worth of tax revenue.

Dr Nathanson claims to be a woman of science but is prepared to go on national TV with authoritative advice that we should stop using Electronic Cigarettes because of the health risks, based on a complete lack of evidence. This smacks of the appalling advice given by the Anti-Vax movement.

About 100,000 people die from smoking related illnesses in the UK each year . Even if there was evidence that eCigs could cause respiratory and cardiac problems, and kill 10,000 people a year, they are still vastly better than Cigarettes. But this is not the case. I can not find one single case of fatal cancer, lung disease or heart disease attributed directly to the correct use of Electronic Cigarettes. Not one single case.

What kind of science would advise high risk smokers not to use an alternative product with no known health risks. The BMA should be petitioning the government to encourage smokers to give up proven harmful tobacco products in favour of products that are vastly safer, cheaper and unbelievably easy to switch over to.

In my opinion, eCigs do not have to be guaranteed 100% absolutely free of any health risk. 95% safer than tobacco based cigarettes is good enough for me and would still save the NHS hundreds of millions a year.

I would challenge Dr Nathanson to provide hard scientific evidence that eCigs provide a significantly high health risk to justify the banning of a product that could help millions of smokers to immediately eliminate their dependency on harmful tobacco based cigarettes. If there is no demonstrable evidence then should we not be organising a campaign to get smokers off carcinogenic cigarettes and onto non-carcinogenic eCigs.

Before you ask, No, I do not have any connection with the Electronic Cigarette industry other than as a consumer of their products.






Sunday, 24 March 2013

Skepticule Podcast #41 (Special Episode)

The Skepticule Podcast #41 is out now.

This is a special episode recorded at The Sunday Assembly in London.




SATURDAY, MARCH 23, 2013

Pope Francis ditches the Bling.

Well, His Holiness Pope Francis is of to a good start.

It seems he's got rid of the outrageously extravagant golden throne and replaced it with a more modest plain white chair.

Gone too is the raised platform carpeted in finest red trimmed in gold.


The ermine lined red velvet cape and the elaborately gold embroidered stole are conspicuous by their majestic absence.


That's not all... Those beautiful red loafers, hand crafted by Pope Benedict's personal cobler: Andriano Stefanelli are replaced by comfortable plain black lace-ups, a little battered but well cared for.


Gone is the beautifully intricate golden crucifix depicting some guy hanging from a torture device, replaced by a simple iron cross.

The solid gold Papal ring belonging to Benedict, according to tradition, now has to be destroyed, presumably in the fires of Mordor. Pope Francis has opted for a simple silver plated signet ring.

There is a saying "The Clothes Maketh the Man". If this is so, I'm expecting to see a switch from a Vain, arrogant, self glorifying hypocrite to someone who is more in touch with reality, someone who realises such a vulgar display of extravagant wealth is offensive to most of the world, especially to those living in abject poverty and doubly so when the man festooned in Golden Bling, living in a palace is pointing his finger at the rest of the world criticizing us for greed and the desire for material wealth.

My hope is that Pope Francis will also have a clear out of all the perverts, corruption and hypocrisy from within the clergy. Perhaps this is too much to ask. It maybe the case that the Vatican expects superficial changes to the Papal image and a thorough PR makeover will divert our attention from the fundamental flaws within the Roman Catholic Empire.

I could be very mistaken in my observations. It maybe the case that the Papal Throne makers are at this very moment constructing an even more elaborate display for another Peacock Pope... but so far... this does not seem to be the case. While far from acceptable, things do seem a little less repugnant in the Vatican.

Only time will tell.

Monday, 11 February 2013

Marriage Equality



The Government has now voted (400 to 175) to approve same-sex marriage in England and Wales.

However, in the weeks leading up to this vote there were many highly vocal protests that such an action would cause a total breakdown of society as we know it. One of these vocal opponents to marriage equality was The Archbishop of Southwark, Peter Smith.

Archbishop Smith asked parishioners to mail their anti-gay views to parliament.

Archbishop Smith distributed one million anti-gay marriage postcards for churchgoers to mail to parliament expressing their opposition to the marriage equality bill.

See the [full article] in GayStarNews:-


Archbishop Smith had previously countered the Governments statement on the Equal Marriage consultation:-

"This response has ignored the key concern expressed by many people in this country; that is the proposed change to the meaning of marriage."

Yes it does, In the same way the abolition of slavery was a change in fundamental human rights... In the same way suffrage was a change to the meaning of women's rights... In the same way the repeal of the Witchcraft act changed the meaning of church inspired fear, hatred and superstition.

He speaks of change as though it was a bad thing. When something is inherently wrong, it needs to be changed.

"We are in danger of forgetting what marriage has always meant: a union of one man and one woman for love and mutual support, open to the procreation of children."

Clearly, Archbishop Smith has never heard of King Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines. Should we also prevent the elderly and the infertile from marrying because they can't procreate? The only criteria we have left is "love and mutual support". Gay couples meet that requirement.

"It is more than a way of recognising committed loving relationships. Marriage matters to families, stability, and the common good of society. We risk grave long term social loss by rushing into such ill-considered legislative change."

So if Marriage is a good thing, why would MORE marriage cause damage to the stability of society. Surely "Divorce" is far more damaging to loving relationships and families, in fact Divorce is usually catastrophic to a marriage but I don't hear Archbishop Smith shouting very loudly about Divorce.

"The consultation showed that nearly half of the 228,000 questioned did not think that civil marriage should be open to same-sex couples and the figures did not take account of the petitions received, which were universally opposed and signed by over 620,000 people."

Oh, I see, All the people who signed the petitions against same-sex marriage were universally opposed to same sex marriage. Archbishop Smith must think we're stupid. Obviously no one who is pro same-sex marriage is going to sign the petition against same sex marriage.



Let's face it, this has nothing to do with the sanctity, tradition or definition of marriage, this is all about the hatred of the gay community, it's about Homophobic Bigotry. 






But bigotry in the marriage department is not new..


This is a picture from the Little Rock Inter-racial protests of the 1960s. The Religious right used exactly the same arguments the gay marriage opponents use today.

When blacks and whites were eventually allowed to marry in 1967, Society didn't collapse. The institution of marriage was not destroyed.

In fact, we look back and recognise the misguided bigotry of the day.


The same will happen for gay marriage. 50 Years from now, our grand children will look back and shake their heads in disbelief at the bigotry within our conservative society.

Furthermore, the religious right will be claiming the credit for releasing the gay community from their oppression at the hands of homophobic bigots in the same way the religious right have claimed the credit for the abolition of slavery and suffrage for women. 


The Churches do not hold any monopoly on Marriage, they are not the custodians of the definition of Marriage, they do not have the authority to impose their traditions on people who do not subscribe to their Churches. They can have an opinion and can impose restrictions on their own adherents but NOT on the rest of the population. 





Tuesday, 1 January 2013

Skepticule Extra Podcast #37


Skepticule Extra shownotes for episode 037 20121125


This is the thirty-seventh episode of Skepticule Extra — aka theThree Pauls Podcast. 

Direct download:
http://traffic.libsyn.com/revup/SkepExtra-037-20121125.mp3

Paul Thompson ("Sinbad") 
The Skeptical Probe
http://skepticalprobe.blogspot.com/

Paul Orton 
Missing God Gene 
http://missinggodgene.blogspot.co.uk/

Paul S. Jenkins
Notes from an Evil Burnee
http://www.evilburnee.co.uk









        Send feedback to feedback@skepticule.co.uk, write a review oniTunes or post a comment below. There is also a Skepticule Extra Forum for further discussion of topics covered in the show (plus other topics). Follow the link to try out the forum.

        Skepticule Extra is a production of Willowsoft Communications

        Creative Commons License
        Skepticule Extra is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
        Direct download:
        http://traffic.libsyn.com/revup/SkepExtra-037-20121125.mp3



        Paedophile Boss lectures Atheists on human dignity

        The man who presides over the worlds largest paedophile ring has recently accused Atheists of denying human dignity.



        This is the man who actively suppressed knowledge of the global child abuse scandal within the Catholic Church in case it damaged the reputation or the assets of the Church.

        This is the man who on Dec 12th 2012 bestowed his blessings on Rebecca Kadaga, the speaker of the Ugandan legislature who is sponsoring the 'Kill the Gays' Bill.

        This is the man who organised special dispensation for Robert Mugabe, one or the worlds top 10 evil dictators to bypass an EU travel ban so he could attend the Beatification ceremony of Pope John Paul II.

        This is the man who had his butler arrested and jailed (and forgiven) for exposing corruption and money laundering within the Vatican Bank.

        This is the man who smacked down Dominican Nuns because they wanted the Catholic Church to focus less on issues of sexual orientation and more on social justice and the human dignity of all people... including women.

        This is the man who condemns 2 million people to death from AIDS every year in Africa because he has decreed the wearing of Condoms is a Sin in the eyes of God.


        This is the man who has the audacity to lecture me on Human Dignity.


        Links:-

        Pope blames Irish Clergy for child abuse problem in Ireland. 

        Pope blocks dismissal of Paedophile Priest.

        Open letter to the Pope urging further dismissals for cover-up culture.

        National Catholic Register pulls article blaming the children for their own abuse.

        Text of 1985 letter from future Pope Benedict on California sex abuse

        Abuse victim sues Pope Benedict over failure to defrock

        Pope blessed 'Kill the Gays' sponsor

        Pope's anti-condom message is sabotage in fight against Aids

        Sunday, 30 December 2012

        Dr Hugh Ross - Lying for God

        On the 23rd of June 2012, Premier Christian Radio broadcast the debate "Is there evidence for a cosmic creator?" on the Unbelievable radio show hosted by Justin Brierley.

        The Theological combatants were:

        Dr Hugh Ross Dr Hugh Ross - Astrophysicist - Astronomer, Christian Apologist
        He has worked at Caltech, MIT, Yale, Fermi Labs, JPL
        He is the founder of the "Reasons to Believe" Organization.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)
        http://www.reasons.org/
        Prof Lewis Wolpert - Cellular Biologist
        University College London
        He is Vice President of the British Humanist Association

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Wolpert

        The debate was hosted by the Imperial College Christian Union and was moderated by Monya Zard of Imperial College.

        Before the debate had started, Red Flags started to appear. In the proposition "Is there evidence for a Cosmic Creator" the word "Cosmic" is ambiguous but if we assume the definition "Pertaining to the the Cosmos", we have a problematic mismatch between debating participants. An Astrophysicist and a Cellular Biologist.... debating Cosmology???


        Dr Hugh Ross opened with the claim that The Bible has 10 times more cosmology than all the other religion's holy books combined.

        He presented an example of where the Bible clearly states the universe began from a Space/Time Singularity -  "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."  He goes on to explain that the Hebrew word for "Create" [bara] means: "to bring into existence that which did not exist before."

        This is incorrect. The translation of [bara] can be: to Shape, Fashion, Create or Transform.

        This is exactly what most bronze age cultures believed... that their particular God created everything. There is no mention of a Space/Time Singularity and there is no way this passage in the Bible predicts or describes (implicitly or explicitly) a Cosmic Singularity. In fact, if this is the standard of evidence required by a professional Astrophysicist then I propose that the story of Goldilocks predicts a singularity, Space/Time and the Holy Trinity with: "Once upon a time, there where three bears". Such an analogy my sound flippant but both interpretations are equally tenuous and contrived.

        I would have liked to have asked Dr Ross for his scientific evidence as to why the first law of thermodynamics is not violated by his claim. Remembering that he is presenting Scientific evidence and not Supernatural evidence.

        I let this pass, It is nothing more that the standard technique of re-interpreting scripture to match that which is known. Scripture supported a geocentric universe until science discovered we lived in a Heliocentric system. Now the same scripture supports a Heliocentric system.


        Dr Ross then made his first extraordinary claim.

        He held up a document, the document was a scientific paper by Roger Penrose and Steven Hawking entitled "The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology."

        Dr Ross read out the conclusion of the paper from the final paragraph:
        "If mass exists in the universe and if general relativity reliably predicts the movement of bodies in the universe then space and time must be created by a causal agent who transcends space and time."

        This is either a deliberate Lie or he has been fooled into believing a document modified by Creationists containing that paragraph.

        But, he was holding the document and apparently quoting verbatim from the final paragraph.

        The paper he is referring to is archived at the Royal Society and is available free of charge to the public. It can be downloaded from here:

        http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/314/1519/529.full.pdf+html

        I have studied the paper in it's entirety. The document does not contain the paragraph quoted by Dr Ross or make any conclusion even vaguely resembling his quote.

        Read the concluding paragraph yourself and see if you can crowbar in an interpretation that in any way resembles the quotation.

        If Dr Ross really had that paper in his hand and had read the final paragraph, he would know what he was saying was not true.

        There are only 2 possibilities.

        • Dr Ross deliberately and knowingly lied.
        • Dr Ross was deceived into believing a fake Creationist version.

        If the former then he has some serious explaining to do. If the latter then he is incompetent and does not bother to fact-check anything that agrees with his preconceived beliefs.

        This is epitome of intellectual dishonesty. Dr Ross knew Prof Wolpert (A Biologist)  would not have read that paper nor anyone else at the Christian Union. He knew Prof Wolpert could not rebut that quote because the quote does not exist and could not be verified during the debate.

        Dr Ross claims the Bible shows us that God is the author of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics in the following verse:-
        NIV Romans 8:21 - "that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."
        Call me Mr Pedantic but everyone else I know interprets Romans 8 as an explanation of salvation from death if you live in accordance with the Spirit and do not follow a sinful nature which leads to death. It takes a major effort of self deception to interpret this passage as Gods promulgation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  Why would Paul be writing to the Romans explaining the gift of salvation freely given to all... and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

        Things now go from bad to worse.

        Dr Ross states that the Bible gives us a testable numeric entropy curve for the cooling of the universe. He displays a classic entropy curve supposedly predicted by the Bible overlaid with 13 data points representing temperatures measured by scientific observation. The Biblically predicted entropy curve precisely matches the curve measured by modern science.

        During the Q&A period Dr Ross was asked to state where in the Bible this precise, quantified entropy curve was defined. Dr Ross attempted to sidestep this question, he evaded the question, tried to answer a different question and pretended not to understand the question even though it was re-phrased clearly and succinctly by the moderator.

        I too would like to challenge Dr Ross' assertion that the Bible quantifies the temperature of the Universe over 14 Billion Years and that these Biblical Measurements correlate with modern scientific measurements. Dr Ross has gone to the effort of extracting enough of these measurements from the Bible to be able to plot an accurate entropy curve. It should be no problem for him to indicate which verses he used for his calculations.

        Just when I thought Dr Ross' arguments had hit rock bottom... Things declined even further.

        Dr Ross quotes 3 statements from a paper by 3 un-named Atheist Physicists entitled "Disturbing implications for a cosmological constant". The original paper can be downloaded from:

        http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf

        The 3 un-named Atheist Physicist are: L. Dyson , M. Kleban and L. Susskind  of the Department of Physics at Stanford University.

        The 3 quotes Dr Ross read from the paper are:-

        Quote 1. 
        "Arranging the universe as we think it's arranged, that is, governed by dark energy would have required a miracle."
        This statement does not appear anywhere in the paper. The closest I can find to this statement is in Ch6 p19 which discusses a hypothetical universe where the temperature  of the CMB is 10 degrees K instead of 2.7 degrees K.  The paper states that such a scenario would generate vastly more possible worlds but:
         "In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without “miracles,” that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences."
        If the quotation does refer to this paragraph, Dr Ross has fabricated the quote, applied it to a hypothetical scenario and attributed it as a conclusion of the authors. This is a gross misrepresentation of the authors.

        Quote 2. 
        "An external agent, external to space and time, intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own."
        This is a deliberate alteration to what was actually stated in the paper. The full text of the statement reads:
        "Another possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation. How-ever, even this does not rid the theory of the pesky recurrences."

        • This is presented as a hypothetical.
        • It does not mention an "External" agent.
        • It does not say the hypothetical agent was "External to Space and Time".
        • He fails to mention that this hypothetical scenario is rejected.

        This is a complete fabrication and misrepresentation by Dr Ross or perhaps Dr Ross was again deceived by a fraudulent Creationist version of the paper and he failed to do any fact checking.... like actually read the original paper.

        Quote 3. 
        "the only reasonable conclusion is that we do not live in a world with a true cosmological constant."
        A minor point, Dr Ross omitted the first word of the conclusion: "Perhaps".

        He also forgot to mention that the conclusion is given on the assumption that the scenarios discussed in the paper assume:

        • There is a fundamental cosmological constant.
        • We can apply the ideas of holography and complementarity to de Sitter space.
        • The time evolution operator is unitary, so that phase space area is conserved.


        Finally, Dr Ross argued earlier in his presentation that God created the universal constants and the laws of cosmology. He now cites a paper that speculates there is no cosmological constant.

        Dr Ross claims he has studied all the major religions and they all get cosmology wrong and The Bible gets it all correct. He says that Islam states the stars are closer than the planets and that Christianity does not make this mistake.

        I would like to see Dr Ross' professional opinion as an Astronomer regarding the orbital trajectory of the Star of Bethlehem which moved across the sky and then hovered over Bethlehem.
        Also - Mark 13:25 - The stars will fall from the sky.
        And - Revelation 6:13 - and the stars in the sky fell to earth.

        I'm disappointed with Premier Christian Radio for practically making Dr Ross their poster boy on the DVD for this lecture/debate series, even titling the DVD "Reasons to Believe" after Dr Ross' Mission. At very best this debate was technically and intellectually questionable at worst, it was a showcase for dishonest debate tactics, fabricated facts and misrepresentation.

        If you have a claim for Truth, that Truth will stand firm on it's own merit. Truth relishes scrutiny and examination because honest scrutiny can only make Truth stronger. If you have to resort to lies and misrepresentation to promote your claim of Truth, you don't have Truth, you only have an empty claim.

        When Truth becomes inconvenient and optional for a belief, it gives me Fewer Reasons to Believe.



        The Ross/Wopert Debate - Is there evidence for a cosmic creator?
        http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/c75cd729-4e4d-427e-855b-29f66520b42d.mp3

        Premier Christian Radio - Unbelievable
        http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable

        Wednesday, 26 December 2012

        Huckabee & Hovind - Self-Aggrandising from Sandy Hook Shootings


        Mike Huckabee and +Eric Hovind  are just two of the most despicable excuses for human beings that I can think of.

        Within minutes of of the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn, Huckabee and Hovind were up on their self-aggrandising soap boxes trying to score theological points on the back of murdered children.

        Here's a few example of their cold heartless promotion of the Christian agenda :

        "No Surprise, We've 'Systematically Removed God' From Schools."
        "Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?"
        "And since we've ordered God out of our schools, and communities, the military and public conversations, you know we really shouldn't act so surprised ... when all hell breaks loose."
        [Mike Huckabee]


        "Are you happy now that the shooter grew up in a school without God?"
        [Eric Hovind]

        "God Could Have Saved Those Kids, but He Won’t Go Where He’s Not Wanted."
        [Bryan Fischer (AFA)] (Whoever he is?)





        What they are indirectly referring to is obviously the adherence to the 1st Amendment that prevents state run organisations imposing any religious activity, doctrine or test on any citizen. Consequently, Schools are not allowed to impose mandatory worship of any deity on their pupils.

        Huckabee and Hovind twist this to mean that God has been "Removed" or "Ordered Out" of Schools. Thus making a mockery of God's supposed Omnipresence.

        Clearly this is not the case. Children and Teachers can pray in School whenever they feel like it. Praying is not banned in any US School.  This is a deliberate and cynical attempt to demonize and spit in the face of the constitution and the rights given to all US Citizens.

        Children and Teachers can pray to their hearts content at school, then can pray on the way to school, they can spend all their lunch breaks praying, They can spend every single minute of spare time praying and I'm sure many of them pray all through lessons instead of learning about reality.

        So let's examine the utter stupidity of what Huckabee and Hovind are actually claiming:

        We know Christian kids and faculty can and do pray to their God as much as they like in school. What they can't do is force all the Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and Atheist kids to worship their particular brand of God.

        So according to the claims of Huckabee and Hovind, all those Christian prayers offered in School were totally useless, it FAILED to prevent evil entering the Sandy Hook Elementary School. The only thing that would have prevented this tragedy was to force Atheist and Jewish kids pray to Jesus every day.

        But this causes a serious problem for Huckabee and Hovind. They are in effect admitting that Christian prayer is totally useless, God doesn't listen. The only thing that would have been effective would have been the additional prayers of Atheists.

        I'm pleased that these two cold hearted bigots without any form of compassion or empathy are beginning to realise that Christian prayer does not work and that only the inclusion of Atheists could have had any effect.


        If you really want to help:
        Prayer clearly doesn't work, it only serves to make you feel better about yourself for not doing anything. Ignore Huckabee and Hovind, Get up off your damn knees and send money to:

        http://newtownmemorialfund.org/
        http://www.weareatheism.com/donate/nonbelievers-giving-aid-support-sandy-hook-elementary/
        https://newtown.uwwesternct.org/

        Prayers will help you feel more righteous and caring about yourself.
        Donations will help rebuild the lives of those affected by this tragedy.

        Do NOT donate to any Facebook site claiming to be collecting donations for Sandy Hook Elementary School, it is almost certain to be a scam..... set up by despicable people trying to profiteer off someone else's tragedy.


        Saturday, 8 December 2012

        Inside the Catholic Church - A short documentary

        Just as we all suspected...

        A short documentary by an unbiased researcher uncovers some interesting facts about the Catholic Church.