An employee was recently fired because she refused to say “Happy Holidays” for “religious reasons.” Yes, “religious reasons” needs to be in quotes there.  I’d have a hard time believing that there is a tenant of her religious faith that prevents her from saying a secular term.  I’ve never heard of any belief system that doesn’t allow them to recognize that their are multiple holidays during this time period.  To say that saying “Happy Holidays” is contributing to the secularization of Christmas is not only arrogant, wrong, and makes you a douchebag, but to say it’s your religious belief makes you a wacko-ding bat who should be incarcerated in a loony bin.

Furthermore she’s going to sue on the grounds of religious discrimination.  She damn well better lose this case.  She refused to do as her employer told her.  There was no need to accommodate her “beliefs” because they damn well aren’t religious to begin with.  There was nothing wrong with what she was told to say.  There has to be a limit to how much we accommodate religion on the work place.  It’s the work place, you’re there to work, not to practice a religion.  If your religion won’t let you do the job as you’re supposed to, then you should be fired or you should quit.  Otherwise Atheists and the like should get extra breaks to go do whatever the hell they want since otherwise they’re picking up your slack and aren’t asking for extra accommodations.

What’s made worse is that the Ding-Bat, Piss-Licking, Christians are asking for accomodations that prevent them from doing their job in the first place or asking to be able to legally discriminate.  I’m sorry, if you’re a pharmacist than you have to do your damn job without any religious convictions.  If you’re asked to distribute the morning after pill (which isn’t actually an abortion pill.  It doesn’t even work that way) then you should be dispensing it because it’s your job as a pharmacist.  Condoms, same thing.  Social workers must deal with homosexuals in the same way they do heterosexuals. Why? Because it’s your job.  Don’t like it, quit.  And why exactly should we be forced to accommodate one of the least accommodating groups in this country.  I’m tired of having to accommodate all the laws and rules they continually try to get passed.  Their book is a plagiarized mythology and not a very good guide on how to live.  I’d rather not have my morality legislated from a book.  I’m sorry, but I don’t want to live in a Christian Theocracy and the Constitution is set up to guarantee that I don’t have to.  How about we accommodate my beliefs and not give you any special privelages in the work place because you believe a complete delusion. Or at the very least, how about you accommodate the rest of us and stop denying the rights of others based on your little book. And if you could start accommodating history, especially the large part of it that prove most of your arguements wrong, that’d be nice.

In third place we have Leland Freeborn, who is predicting that we’ll be nuked within the next five days.  I wonder if this prediction will be more accurate than every other doomsday prediction he’s gotten wrong before?  I’m not a betting man, which is why I’m willing to put a substantial amount of money on him being wrong.

Second place goes to Andrew and the Liberty Counsel for writing a shitty poem and then trying to profit.  I just love how the link on the page is mostly about how to buy things to support the Liberty Counsel.  Quite frankly the student is lucky that I’m not his teacher.  He’d have lost a lot more points than just one.  It’s bland, unoriginal, uninspired, and quite horrible syntax wise.  It’s awful and should never have been given anywhere near an “A” in the first place.  I feel sorry for this kid’s future biology teachers.  Perhaps he’ll realize his parents are full of shit before then.

“Christmas is a state and federal holiday. Schools are closed to celebrate this holiday. Obviously, Christmas is constitutional.”

Wonderfully put.  Neglect that not every state recognizes Christmas as a state holiday.  Missouri doesn’t.  It soon will because our legislator has less important things to do than try to keep from cutting state university budgets by 20%.  And obviously Christmas is constitutional because schools have breaks.  Yes, it couldn’t be the court cases declaring these breaks as secularly motivated and basically declaring Christmas to be secular.  Sure, let’s ignore the real reasons it’s considered constitutional in favor of ignorantly assuming that we recognize a religion.  By the way, for historical purposes, Mississippi didn’t recognize Christmas until 1972 by a gubernatorial order.

And First Place goes to my man, the wacko Catholic debaco, Bill Donahue for his enlightening essay, “Root Cause of the War on Christmas.“  Though you might have guessed that the cause was Bill Donahue and company inventing this war, you’re surprisingly wrong.

The root cause of the war on Christmas, which is conducted almost exclusively by well-educated white people in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia—the very same people who like gay marriage—has almost nothing to do with fidelity to law (the First Amendment in the U.S.): it has to do with ideology.

It’s interesting how the root cause of many problems religion has these days stems from “well-educated” people.  Could their be any correlation between not believing in bullshit/not being a bigot and education?  Don’t worry, there is one.  Studies have demonstrated this over and over again.

Hence why we’ve got to put a stop to that education thing. Causes way too many problems.  You’d think we could just stop the sciences, but no, those pesky history majors and their correcting all the revisionist history lies.  Then there’s those philosophy majors figuring out that you can be moral without being a slave to a fairy.  And then there’s those creative writers that just go about and, well, okay, they’re really not so much of a problem (aside from the real crazy ones that go about doing all sorts of weird shit).

The ideology is plainly an expression of left-wing secularism, and it is nothing if not anti-Western and anti-Christian. At its worst, it is driven by hatred; at its best, it is driven by a defensive posture, a deep sense of embarrassment over the legacy of Western civilization. There is no historical or moral justification for either. Moreover, those who are pushing this agenda generally lie about their work.

Oh no, left-wing secularism, also known as not wanting to live in an oppressive.  Here’s another problem, Western and Christian are not the same thing.  While it may be a bit anti-Christian, since the Christians seem to be anti-logic, anti-tolerance, pro-bigotry, anti-diversity, etc.  Hatred, yes, pure, simple hatred.  Somewhere somebody forgot to inform me that I was supposed to hate everything.  Apparently Mr. Donahue has also missed that Western Culture has done some horrid things.  Some of those things, like colonialism, are still causing problems today.  Some things we’ve fixed.  The point is, we should fix the shit we broke instead of acting like we had nothing to do with it.  As far as Western Culture goes, we’ve done some pretty awesome things for this planet too.  Science, modern medicine, and so on.   I would like to add a little emphasis for something Donahue said, but with a different proposition.

Religion:

There is no historical or moral justification for either. Moreover, those who are pushing this agenda generally lie about their work.

Sometimes I really wish I could understand how the brains of such nutjobs worked.  Take this quote for example and see if you can’t figure out what Claire Ebel is actually talking about.

Want proof that hate is driving this assault? The head of the ACLU in New Hampshire, Claire Ebel, advises that if crèches are allowed in parks, it is permissible ‘for a display of satanic ritual.’

If you guessed that she was pointing out that if you allow one religion you have to allow them all – for example, the insanity going on in Washington at the moment.   I’m still left wondering how that’s an example of hate.

It seems that the cunt-dripping, piss-licking, mustard-humping, dickless-pumpernickel-sniffers aren’t just content with getting their hate and bigotry codified into law.  Now they want to legally nullify every gay marriage that had already taken place in California. Cruelty is about all this has to do with.  For some reason these slaves to unreason can’t be happy unless they’ve ruined the lives of those who don’t even affect them.  Religiosity in this country is reaching frightening levels once again.  They can’t just be content with guiding their own lives, but they must legislate that everybody else has to follow the word of God.  These are the same asshats who run around claiming we’re the ones persecuting them.  I’m sorry, not wanting to live in a theocracy isn’t exactly a liberal conspiracy.

The real important thing is that prop 8 goes against the common law established by the California Supreme Court.

The court’s ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights “so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.”

It’s nice to see that at least one part of the government realizes that bigotry is bullshit.

While the majority (read: bigots) continues to be against civil rights in this country in regards to gay marriage the polls demonstrate that a majority is in favor of civil unions.  Their biggest concern seems to be that we’re going to redefine a word that has been redefined multiple times over the last 1000 years.  Fair enough, you want your word to be your word and only your word (even though it isn’t your word).

However, if you’re going to get your word for what you call that collection of rights then the gays should get to pick the world they want to use.  It’s not fair that you get to pick your word and their word.  They should get to pick. It’s only fair.

With that in mind I have a suggestion.  Personally, I say that, instead of “civil union” the gays call it “jesus.”  I think it’s a rather wonderful idea.  Just think about it, wouldn’t you want to get jesused with your partner?  I’m straight and I would rather get jesused than married.  That’s the other thing, gays, you should probably let everybody get jesused.  You know, show that you’re much more tolerant than the religious asshats who think they should run the lives of everyone.  Plus, it provides a viable alternative to the rest of us on your side who also don’t believe their crap.

Plus, with calling it jesus the euphemisms for divorce are quite interesting.  It’s not a divorce so much as a crucifixion.  You can “crucify your jesus.” You “nailed it to a cross.”  You’re in the process of being martyred.  And if you aren’t quite ready to ascend on up to heaven you can resurrect your jesus.

So maybe it isn’t he best solution to the problem, but I still think it has a certain amount of class.