Tag Archives: deception

Qui sont les vrais salauds..?

I’m hoping that at least a fairly decent translation. I guess I have to trust Google Translate on this one, since my French is WAY rusty since High School. (“Je voudrais aller à la salle de bain..?”)

Anyhow. “Who are the real bastards..?” That’s what I was aiming for. Why? Because everyone by now knows about the Paris attacks. I didn’t write anything about it in the first few days. I almost barely feel like writing anything now. I guess I just don’t quite know what else to say, that hasn’t already been said a zillion times, either by myself or many, many others…

At this point, I guess I’m starting to feel like either you’re gonna see it all for what it is, or you just aren’t, because you simply don’t want to step outside that box which makes it all seem so simple and straightforward.

I was reminded of the “box” on Saturday, when I had to take my car into the mechanic first thing in the morning. My mechanic sees me walk up to the counter in the little office, and asks me, “So did hear the news yet this morning?”

“No”, I reply. “I only saw the coverage last night. Haven’t looked at the news yet today…”

“28 minutes ago ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks”, he tells me. “Time to go kill every last one of those mother-F’ers, that’s what it is.”

I almost opened my mouth, to say one of a dozen different quips that suddenly sprang to mind, but then thought twice about it, reminding myself that it might not be the wisest thing to speak off the cuff and potentially offend the very individual I am relying on to get my car fixed in a timely and honest manner…

Perhaps, not all that long ago, I would’ve been so infuriated by the perpetuation of such mindless propaganda, such obvious use of the false-flag tactic to incite yet MORE unjustified war-mongering, etc., that I would’ve gladly launched into a debate, regardless of the jeopardy I might be putting my broken vehicle into. But now, fourteen years after 9/11, and the litany of “acts of Terror” which has followed in so many other countries…?

Either you see the script, or you don’t. Call me apathetic, but I don’t think it’s that. It’s just the result of now having seen years of people being goaded and baited into chasing after the created-bad-guy du jour, and it working, over and over again. We like having clearly defined bad guys. We like to think we know and understand who the bastards are, and where they’re hiding, since they clearly deserve a good solid air strike or two (or a hundred).

We like our flags. We like our artificial lines drawn on artificial maps, and we are ever so comforted by continually believing that however crazy things in the world might currently be, it’s still able to explained and understood within the bounds of those artificial lines, be they geopolitical, economic, or whatever else.

But it’s not about that. It’s really not. Not about crazy “blood-thirsty Muslims” trying to create a “Caliphate”. It’s not about Muslims being innocent victims either. It’s not about corporate greed, or Nationalist military expansion, or violent religious fanaticism.

It’s about the ongoing agenda to create the framework for the New World Order.


“Globes In My Mind”…

A couple months ago I wrote a post called “It Would Take a Lot of BALLS to Indoctrinate Everyone Like That”, and for a while now I’ve been wanting to try and take those thoughts and put them in a video, since it deals with such a visually-oriented idea. Finally got a chance to put it together. Here it is.

“Just Let It In…?”

“The Force… It’s calling to you. Just let it in…”

When I heard the last two lines of the new Star Wars trailer, I just thought, “Wow… It’s all coming together.”

And yes, I will admit that to write this post, it takes a considerable amount of effort to squelch my inner fan boy, and not gush over how cool the new movie actually looks, or how bad a** it is to see Harrison Ford resuming the mantle of Han Solo, or how basically just watching that trailer was itself more satisfying than any of the prequels in their entirety… (oops, okay, no FURTHER gushing, beyond that.)

But in all seriousness, from what small plot points can be gleaned from the trailers, it really does seem to me that the message of Mysticism inherent in the entire SW franchise is really taking center stage in this final trilogy.

From what I can surmise, it appears as though our beloved “galaxy far, far away” is once again being threatened by totalitarian forces with Empirical aspirations, led once again by some black-clad Sith lord, wearing a mask, with a scary voice…(not exactly what you’d call originality there, but hey) It seems that one of the main characters is a stormtrooper (redesigned for the umpteenth time) who apparently abandons his post and joins up with what looks like the same 70’s-color-schemed (yay!) Rebel forces.

Then, good ol’ Han is explaining to the young Rebels that, “It’s true. All of it… The Dark Side. The Jedi. They’re real…”

Sounds like the GFFA has mostly forgotten about the magic and mystery of the Force-wielding Jedi, and in this movie, we get to watch them rediscover it. (Okay, I realize that this isn’t some genius-level investigation on my part, since the title of the movie IS “the Force Awakens”, after all…)

But all you need to do to get the case in point here, is apply this to our time, our own galaxy. It is all, of course, propaganda of the purest sort, playing upon the nostalgia of Gen-xers like myself, and the now Star-Wars-saturated-generation of my children as well.

Carl Teichrib refers to this phenomena as the “Era of Re-enchantment”, the amazing fact that indeed today we are observing our popular culture continue to veer away from the meaninglessness of Post-Modernism, (which itself was a reaction against the raw materialistic void of Modernism…) and is now in the middle of coming full circle, returning BACK to the mysticism and paganism of bygone centuries, mixed in with our modern technology of course.

And this is precisely what Star Wars always has, and continues to, embody 100%. Ancient mysticism, set in a high-tech world. It is about synthesizing what for a long time was perceived to be two fairly non-symbiotic elements, bridging that gap that had for a long time held strong in the realm of fiction, between pure “Science Fiction” with it’s robots and warp drives and aliens, and “Fantasy” with it’s magical wizards and powerful swords and endless connotations towards ancient Mythology.

So, sigh… As much as the inner 7-year-old in me just wants to revel in the rebooted Wookie howls, and light saber clashes, and the goose bumps I actually did get when in the new trailer, the orchestra started to play “bum buuum, buuum, bum ba buuuum, buuuuuuum….”, I have to steel myself, and step back, and remember the very LYING message that is still being trumpeted here, and probably more so than ever before.

Yes, “the Force IS calling to us”, more and more all the time. That “Force”, however, is not the power that comes through the Holy Spirit. It is not the Force which can raise the Dead, or heal the sick, or set men free from the bondage of their own sin. It is a lying Force. It is the same power once wielded by the magicians of Pharaoh’s court, and the girl in the Book of Acts who told fortunes, before the demons in her were cast out…

It is the “Force” which I really do believe the Devil is trying to entice the entire world into desiring, as a part of the final Great Deception, which somehow will all be tied into the Mark of the Beast system and the coming One World Religion and everything else. Ancient Occult magic meets modern technology indeed…

It is only going to keep “calling to us”, more and more and time progresses, but friends, we most certainly, unequivocally, do NOT want to “just let it in”…

A Media Clinic on Vilification…

Wanna see how to get the most “anti-anti-government” bang for your news-propaganda buck? Check out this story that I happened to catch this morning on the local Vegas news.

The piece I saw on tv today featured a young woman who supposedly had gone to this guy, after being referred to him by someone at a grocery store (?), and apparently she thought he was just some kind of wholeistic medicine dude, doing herbal remedies, etc. She described how “horrified” she was when she got there and discovered that his “clinic” was being done out of a trailer on his property, and how there were bags full of blood lying around on the floor, the place was filthy, and son on. The anchor goes on to explain how Rick Van Thiel was not a licensed physician, but was performing all kinds of procedures, such as abortions, “cancer cure treatments” and so on. The interviewee even mentions how shocked she was when the man’s girlfriend walked into the room topless, and at that point she just wanted to run out of there…

Topless girlfriend, perfect segue into sharing the juicy tidbit that apparently before Thiel was a non-licensed doctor, he was a porn star and director. Quite a zinger…

The tv news story also mentions how his website featured a “nude” picture of himself, (which actually only featured his bare upper body) wherein he apparently was claiming to have been able to cure a skin condition which he had contracted after the military had exposed him to harmful chemicals.

In this article, is says that his procedures included “everything from circumcisions and tooth extractions to cancer and HIV treatment. Authorities also found two firearms and ammunition in a safe inside the trailer.”

Another excerpt says, “A notice at the bottom of one site hints at an anti-establishment mindset: “For the purposes of this website the term ‘doctor’ or ‘Doctor Rick’ is a nick name and not intended to infer state sanction or Rockefeller drug pushing training. The purpose of this site is not to beg for FDA endorsement or to diagnose or treat disease, it is to help you make informed decisions necessary to take control of your own life and health, and now to care for it in in the manor you decide is best for you.”

And in this ‘full interview’, we discover that not only did Rick learn how to perform surgeries from watching Youtube, but he is also a part of a the much-maligned ‘sovereign-citizen’ movement, with connections the notorious ‘Bundy Ranch’ and also apparently to some plot against the life of a police officer. It says, “On his website, Van Theil offered “Sovereign Babies” delivering children in his trailer without a birth certificate. Telling parents that when the child is 18 they would have the choice to be a “free being or to become a slave”

I mean, wow…

You really gotta hand it to em, because they sure recognize that when an individual like Van Thiel finally gets brought out into the public eye, they’re gonna milk it for all it’s worth.

So hey, let’s do a little run-down of all the memes they managed to cram into this one story.

You are basically being are put into the same category as a “sex-crazed, backwards, baby-killing, nut-job” IF:

*You dare question the medical establishment, or would ever consider alternative/wholistic options.
*You dare to think that just MAYBE there ARE some ways that cancer could be treated or cured, which didn’t involve chemo/radiation.
*You would ever think that the military would expose it’s own soldiers to harmful substances.
*You dare have any misgivings about the “Rockefeller drug cartel”.
*You dare entertain the idea that somehow birth certificates and/or social security numbers could somehow be linked to a form of financial slavery.
*You own guns.
*You dare to entertain such “dangerous” questions about the ways in which ordinary citizens might be able to take more responsibility and informed ownership over their own health, and lives in general.

So yes, well done, dutiful propaganda establishment. While this specific individual may very well deserve to be prevented from doing various things that might indeed be a health and safety hazard, you have done a splendid job in not letting the story go to waste, and fear-porning it to the Nth degree so that the rest of the citizenry can be reminded to associate any and all notions of questioning the monolithic medical/drug empire, or the ever-increasing system of total government control, with “crazy” shirtless guys with leaky blood-bag-filled trailers in their backyards…

EKKLESIA of the ESCHATON: The Last Days Church…

This video incorporates a section of David Wilkerson’s Vision which God gave him concerning the fate of America, the World, and the road of refining that the true Body of Christ would have to endure in the days ahead. I believe he shared this vision around 1973 or so, and yet now, in the infamous month of September 2015, with all the talk of foretold collapse and martial law and everything else, it seemed like a rather fitting time to pull out Pastor Wilkerson’s words, and the words of Jesus too.

Funny How the Atheists Have No Problem Recognizing Biblical Support of a Flat Earth…

I keep bumping into examples like this recently, and it really does strike me as ironic, and a little funny, but a little embarrassing too. Some of the BEST compilations I have encountered of Bible verses describing a Flat Earth, have been put together not by Biblical scholars or theologians, but by Atheists! And the thing is, I very much now have to agree with them, in that, whatever what one might want to believe about the true nature of the Universe, it’s pretty inescapable to see what the Bible itself actually does say

In the end, it’s really an issue of neither side wanting to end up with egg on their face. One side inevitably will. Most people believe that it’s been soundly decided and proved. But has it really…? (After all, the same folks will tell you that Darwinian Evolution has been soundly decided, and proven as “unquestionable scientific fact”…) Either the Bible was wrong, and Christianity has simply been trying to sweep all these “scientifically ignorant” claims of the Bible under the rug for the last several hundred years, OR… The Bible is right, has always been right, and a good deal of what you’ve been told your whole life is simply a ridiculous lie…

Here is an article titled: Why Don’t Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Also Think the Earth Is Flat?

The creationist crowd is in a tithy lately. First there was “Cosmos” — on Fox, no less! —  giving short shrift to everything they hold dear. Then, adding insult to injury, for those paying close attention, long-awaited evidence of the Big Bang arrived.  It’s been a rough few weeks.

But really, if you’re a biblical literalist, it’s been a rough few centuries, or millennia, actually. You see, according to the Bible, the earth is both stationary and flat. Most pointedly, there are at least two passages in which a single point is visible to the whole world (Daniel 4:10-11 and Revelation 1:7), and one (Matthew 4:8) in which the whole world can be seen from a single point — an obvious impossibility unless the earth is flat.

Although the Catholic Church had forced Galileo to recant his work questioning the immobile earth in 1632 — and only pardoned him in 1992 — they did so in part because they were certain the earth was a globe: a globe around which the sun, moon and all other heavenly bodies revolved. Such was the Ptolemaic system, which had dominated Western views for more than a millennium. And yet, the Bible itself reflects a radically different view of the cosmos, one shared by the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians, in which the earth is both stationary and flat. And there is a wide range of scriptural passages to prove it.

The late Robert Schadewald made this point conclusively in “The Flat-Earth Bible,” an article posted on the Web back in 1995.  Schadewald was a former board member and president of the National Center for Science Education, a leader in the fight against creationism and other forms of pseudo-science being pushed into schools. But he was as much an enthusiastic student of fringe or “alternative” science as a source of endless fascination as he was a critic of swallowing it whole.

“When I first became interested in the flat-earthers in the early 1970s, I was surprised to learn that flat-earthism in the English-speaking world is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible,” Schadewald begins his piece. Easily the most influential work is “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe,” by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Its first, 16-page pamphlet edition, in 1849, predated Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” by a decade.

“The Biblical cosmology is never explicitly stated, so it must be pieced together from scattered passages,” Schadewald explains. But he starts with the much more direct, explicit Bible statements about an immobile, geocentric earth. It’s a logical starting point, since he notes, “The flat-earth view is geocentricity with further restrictions.” There are hundreds of such passages, according to geocentrist James N. Hanson, who spoke to Schadewald at the 1984 National Bible-Science Conference in Cleveland, but these are “a few obvious texts” that Schadewald chose to cite:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast …”

It’s remarkable enough that most of today’s creationists, wedded to biblical literalism andinerrancy, rarely mention such passages, particularly given the history of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. But then there are these, as well:

Daniel 4:10-11: [Nebuchadnezzar] “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth … reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.”

Matthew 4:8: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”

Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him …”

A single point cannot see to or be seen from everywhere on a globe at once. For these words to be literally true, the earth must be flat, end of story.

These are only a few passages, of course. To really comprehend the Bible’s flat-earth cosmology, you have to know what you’re looking for — the other elements of the flat-earth world. That’s why Schadewald noted, “As neighbors, the ancient Hebrews had the Egyptians to the southwest and the Babylonians to the northeast. Both civilizations had flat-earth cosmologies. The Biblical cosmology closely parallels the Sumero-Babylonian cosmology, and it may also draw upon Egyptian cosmology.” He went on to document what he meant. In addition to the passages above, he cited passages concerning the nature of the heavens, the order of creation, and the diminutive nature of the sun, moon and stars. All are relevant to the claim of a flat earth, because all are parts of a coherent flat-earth worldview similar to that of Egypt and Babylon’s: The earth is flat; the heavens are a solid dome, fashioned of metal; the sun, moon and stars are relatively small object inside the dome of heaven.  As for the order of creation, Schadewald wrote:

The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The orderof creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.

Regarding the heavens, he noted that the word “firmament” is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, meaning the “visible vault of the sky,” and coming from riqqua, “beaten out.” “A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl,” Schadewald pointed out. “Thus, Elihu asks Job, ‘Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?’” He went on to cite a number of passages supporting the view that the vault of heaven is “a solid, physical object” and thus “a tremendous feat of engineering,” as well as passages from Isaiah [40:22], Job [22:12, 14], and Ezekiel [1:22-26, 10:1], which “complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome,” not merely an illusion that looks like a dome.

Regarding celestial bodies, Schadewald first noted, “They had to be small to fit inside the vault of heaven,” but added, “Small size is also implied by Joshua 10:12, which says that the sun stood still ‘in Gibeon’ and the moon ‘in the Vale of Aijalon.’” He then cited a number of passages presenting celestial bodies as “exotic living beings,” somewhat similar to how various polytheist religions represent them. And, of course, stars can fall from the skies (Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Revelation 6:13-16).

While the Bible itself contains no explicit cosmological description, the Book of Enoch, a highly regarded source that influenced the Bible, does. Schadewald pointed out that Jude 14- 15 quotes 1 Enoch 1:9, attributes prophecy to Enoch, and thus “confers inspired status upon the book.”  He went on to say:

Unlike the canonical books of the Bible, which (in my view) were never meant to teach science, sections of 1 Enoch were intended to describe the natural world. The narrator sometimes sounds like a 2nd century B.C. Carl Sagan explaining the heavens and earth to the admiring masses. The Enochian cosmology is precisely the flat-earth cosmology previously derived from the canonical books.

This includes trips to the ends of the earth, a detailed description of solar and lunar motion, including six openings in heaven for them to emerge from when they rise and another six to pass into when they set, according to the season, and  more information about stars, including their punishment for transgressions.

Some might be inclined to think that Schadewald was overstating his case. That’s understandable. Skepticism is good. So they should consider what a true believer had to say. In “Earth Not a Globe,”  Rowbotham first presented a series of secular arguments on a wide range of specific issues, but in the end he resorted to wide-ranging, detailed arguments from scripture, in which moral, religious and physical arguments were all jumbled together with extensive quotations from the Bible.

At one point, for example, Rowbotham cited more than two dozen passages, such asPsalm 103, 11, “For as the Heaven is high above the Earth,” to argue that “If the Earth is a globe revolving at the rate above a thousand miles an hour all this language of scripture is necessarily fallacious.” “Up” and “down” are meaningless, he argued, if the place you point to as “up above” you is millions of miles away by the time you’re finished speaking. This may seem like a bizarre position, but it actually accurately reflects a consistent, literal-minded, stationary geocentric worldview — if not an exclusively flat-earth perspective. It simply shows how much scriptural evidence one can find, depending on the set of assumptions one begins with — which in turn shows just how difficult, if not impossible, it is to change the minds of true believers.

In another passage, Rowbotham argued about the nature of celestial bodies, further illustrating how his viewpoint produces a proliferation of scriptural support. First, he rejected the notion that the moon shines with reflected light, quoting Genesis 1, 16-17,“He made the Stars also; and God set them in the firmament to give light upon the earth,”and 10 other passages, before concluding, “Nothing is here said, nor is it said in any other part of Scripture, that the sun only is a great light, and that the moon only shines by reflection.” Then he argued that stars are not sunlike objects vast distances away, but rather are lights in the sky created to give light to the earth at night. These clearly mattered to him because of the entire worldview they are part of — precisely the point that Schadewald made.

Not incidentally, in making his point about the stars, Rowbotham misrepresented the scientific view by claiming, for example, “[T]he modern system of astronomy teaches that this earth cannot possibly receive light from the Stars, because of their supposed great distance from it.”  Here, and throughout his argument, he confuses the matter of starlightreaching the earth, so that we can see the stars, with the matter of starlight illuminatingthe earth, so that we can see other objects by the light of the stars. The two are entirely different matters, but Rowbotham, for all his careful attention to words when it suits him, never seems to notice. In the end, however, he makes a claim so wild, it seems to make everything else irrelevant. He says that travelers report that in many other parts of the world, starlight is “sufficiently intense to enable them to read and write.”  Yet, the confusion of terms in his argument is vital to setting the tone for this final, preposterous assertion — all of it, firmly rooted in scripture as he reads it.

Again, this may seem far removed from the idea of a flat earth. But for Rowbotham, our inability to see the connection is but further proof of how little we understand. And he had a point. The world as he envisions it is so radically different than our own that we find it difficult, if not impossible, to imagine what he takes for granted. But if the earth is flat, covered by a physical dome that contains the stars, then the descriptions he offers do make sense — and for Rowbotham, reading the Bible as he did, it’s impossible to separate one part of that cosmology from any of the others.

Rowbotham also made a further argument about the stars that goes to the subject of moral confusion and relativism — neatly anticipating the anti-Darwinians who would follow him. If, he argued, the stars are “not simply lights, as the scriptures affirm them to be, but magnificent worlds,” then there arise all sorts of theological conundrums — Are the worlds inhabited? If so, have the first parents be tempted? Have they fallen? Been redeemed? Does each world have a separate redeemer? Or is Christ the redeemer for every world? If so, was his suffering on earth sufficient for all the other worlds? And what of Adam’s fall?  Did it implicate the inhabitants of all other worlds? “The Christian philosopher must be confounded!” Rowbotham exclaimed. “If his religion be to him a living reality, he will turn with loathing or spurn with indignation and disgust, as he would a poisonous reptile, a system of astronomy which creates in his mind so much confusion and uncertainty!”  What a relief, then, to know that it’s all garbage, that earth is the only world ever created!  How strikingly similar, then, his rejection of secular astronomy was to the creationists’ rejection of secular biology.

This is but part of a larger family resemblance, as Schadewald explains in “The Evolution of Bible-Science,” a chapter he contributed to the 1984 volume, “Scientists Confront Creationism“ (adapted version here). In his introduction, Schadewald wrote:

“For two thousand years, various groups of dogmatists have tried to force the universe to fit their interpretation of Scripture. They have judged and rejected evidence and explanations according to the standard of their own religious beliefs. On scriptural grounds, some have rejected (and continue to reject) the sphericity of the earth, the Copernican system, and the evolution of life on earth. In the last two centuries, flat-earthers, geocentrists, and creationists have adopted a label for their dogmas: Bible-science.”

It’s obvious why creationists would not want to be associated with flat-earthers, but it’s not at all obvious why we should let them get away with it, given how similar their arguments, assumptions and purposes are.  In discussing the internal divisions of Bible science, Shadewald wrote:

“Though flat-earthism is as well-supported scripturally and scientifically as creationism, the creationists plainly do not want to be associated with flat-earthers….

“[Y]oung-earth creationism closely resembles the flat-earth movement. In fact, young-earth creationism, geocentrism, and flat-earthism are respectively the liberal, moderate, and conservative branches of the Bible-science tree. The intense hostility expressed by the scientific creationists toward the flat-earthers does not extend to modern geocentrists, who hover on the edge of respectability among creationists. Indeed, though the Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book, the geocentrists have combined forces with liberal creationists to cast the flat-earthers into outer darkness.”

And, indeed, the similarities are much more basic than the differences, as he quickly went on to note. In an earlier, 1981 article, he explained more fully:

“Despite their internecine warfare, Bible-Scientists are in broad agreement on a number of issues. They agree on the usefulness of the Bible as a scientific text, the weakness of mere theories, the duplicity of conventional scientists, and the impossibility of reconciling conventional science with the Bible. The creation and flat-earth movements have similar foundations and histories, and both have used similar strategies to propagate their beliefs. Indeed, both believe they are battling the same behind-the-scenes opponent.”

Today, more than 30 years after Shadewald wrote those words, belief in the “weakness of mere theories” and “the duplicity of conventional scientists” now extend well beyond Bible science, into the far reaches of the culture war as conservatives see it, including the field of global warming, where conservatives openly parade their contempt for scientific theories, and their suspicion (if not conviction) that scientists are involved in an elaborate deception (“climategate,” anyone?).  In this same article, Shadewald quoted Rowbotham:

“Let the practise of theorising be abandoned as one oppressive to the reasoning powers, fatal to the full development of truth, and, in every sense, inimical to the solid progress of sound philosophy.”

And he went on to say:

Charles K. Johnson, president of the Flat Earth Society, is absolutely vehement about scientific dishonesty. He regularly calls scientists “liars” and “demented dope fiends” and claims that the entire space program is a “carnie game.”

With these sorts of venomous sentiments now infusing not just Bible scientists, but the wider conservative audience for global warming denialism, birtherism, groundless claims of “death panels” and massive voter fraud, etc., it seems high time that progressives stop playing defense and start going on offense. Asking Christian conservatives to defend flat-earthism any time they open their mouths would be an excellent place to start. The Bible, after all, is far, far clearer in supporting a flat earth than it is in opposing abortion, much less birth control.

So, thank you, Atheists. Nice work! A fair enough challenge indeed. Unfortunately, science might not be coming down on the side we’ve all long assumed after all…