Copland III

Oh dear, I have been awful in not blogging for so long. I’m afraid other commitments have kept me busy. Oh well. To catch up, let’s see who this week’s Prize Twat is. This week, it’s a little topical and partly down to convenience.

Richard Dawkins has been kind enough to make some of his hate mail public, and PZ Myers reposted some of it under the title Richard Dawkins gets mail, too. This particular letter was from a Mr (well, one assumes) Peter Colley of Bellevue, Washington, who wrote…

DAWKINS!

You are a filthy, mother-fucking, pigshit cunt of an arsehole British pig and bastard to cheat, deceive and hoodwink readers with your rotten free inquiry article (which shit I enclose so you can read your own drivel!) No one but an arrogant, putrid, verminous burke [Ed: berk!?] would resort to such a cheap, pigsty trick (unless, of course, he is Michael Shermer, who is as much of a stinking cunt and skunk as you are). Wallow well in your elitist pigsty, elitist British oaf and vermin!!! I spit on shit like you, especially if they are British elitist turds!!!

Most sincerely yours,

Peter Colley

PETER COLLEY

P.S. Fuck you, stinking son of a British whore!!!

Sometimes these letters are so awful, they’re funny. And, quite conveniently, if I continue with my plan to offer a physical prize to whoever wins the Twat of the Year award, he has kindly offered his address. Wonderful.

Some say the face of Jesus can be seen in this moth. They are all descendants of vegetables, it seems.

Do you see a face in this moth? I didn’t, but someone does Therefore, apparently, it must be the face of Jesus.

“His hair right here and you can see the mustache and the beard and there’s a little slit right there that looks like His mouth and when he would move the mouth would open so it looked like he was trying to talk to you.”

[snip]

“I immediately thought it looked like Jesus and that was what was so cool cause you’ve seen His face in grilled cheese sandwiches and windows and things but on a moth’s back…we thought that was pretty neat.”

[snip]

Brother James Jordan thinks the patterns do resemble Jesus better in person than in these blown-up pictures.

But he adds, that’s all it is.

“I don’t want to bow down to it. It’s not Jesus, it’s just an image on something God created.”

But this creation has become the talk of the town in Pittsburg, prompting Jordan to give this reminder at church.

“The word of God says that all creation declares His glory… but we’re also warned in Romans 1 that we shouldn’t worship created things. We should worship the Creator.”

A Creator which he says can reach out to us in strange ways.

“If He can do that on a little moth, He can do mighty things in our lives.”

Members are keeping the moth at the church. They say if anyone wants to buy it, the money would go towards relocating the church.

PZ Myers seems to think it looks more like Charles Mason. I think it looks like Paris Hilton pissing off Sharleen Spiteri in a bar. That said, I think I have found an image of the Virgin Mary on this toilet sign.

Conservapedia has always been a fecal pool for racist, biased and twisted bollocks. But this particular article amuses me – it is the article on naturism. I’m linking to it via snurl (I am in no way going to contribute to these idiots’ PageRank).

Naturism, also known as nudism, is the idea that going without clothes is acceptable and beneficial for health and wellbeing.

Those who support naturism quote Genesis 2:25, “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

However, the Bible clearly says that such behavior is not acceptable. Genesis 3:9-10 says, “And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

Further, Leviticus 18 is far more explicit against naturism:

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.

Quite amusingly, the Conservaprats have misquoted their own holy text. The ‘uncover one’s nakedness’ in the KJV sense actually equates to “have sex with”. Nothing to do with nudity at all, then.

And then we come to the talk page. Oh, dear. The’ve been discussong this issue with excellent verve, even getting basic bible cancepts wrong.

This article equivocates on the biblical concept of uncovering someone’s nakedness, which is KJV language for the total sex act and has little to do with public nudism. I don’t think there’s any way to salvage this article to make it acceptable in CP. Teresita 21:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree. According to mainstream Christian theology Adam and Eve were without sin prior to their
disobedience regarding the Tree of Life.

They were also naked as well before the Tree of Life “original sin”. Therefore, according to Genesis at least, nudity in and of itself must not be sinful. That’s how I understand it at any rate. Sulgran 21:47, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

“Those who support naturism quote Genesis 2:25, ‘And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.’” Surely there are also naturists who do not go déshabillé just because of Genesis? Perhaps even naturists who do not even believe Genesis?–All Fish Welcome 04:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The Catholic Church is exhuming the body of a priest, apparently so that the body can be moved to a city where it will be easier to venerate in the process of canonisation. What the Church doesn’t make clear is that the priest was, in fact, gay.

Cardinal John Henry Newman lived with another man, Fr Ambrose St. John, for most of his late adult life – they lived together as ‘husband and wife’. Newman’s dying wish was to be buried with his partner.

Of course, it’s unreasonable to think the Catholic Church would accept this. So what do they do? Disown him? Deny him sainthood? No. They deny his homosexuality.

Cormac Murphy O’Connor, quoted in the Independent:

“I don’t think anyone disputes that Cardinal Newman deeply loved Ambrose St John. He did say after St John died that the grief is comparable to a husband losing a wife or wife losing a husband, but he did not mean that the relationship with Ambrose St John was a marriage like a gay relationship. It is simply wrong to read back from today’s categories into the Victorian periods when these very intense, passionate, but totally celibate relationships in Oxford and among the Anglocatholic community were very common.”

Then again, the church has always tried to hush up homosexuality. But the fact that this man’s dying wish has been desecrated to be moved into a box in Birmingham to have a posthumous title applied to it is deplorable.