The following is a piece I wrote back in 2004—long before ITAS. I rediscovered it while going through my old computer’s documents, so I thought this would be a good place for it.

Supporters of legislation that limits marriage to include only heterosexuals are fighting a losing battle. Right-winged attempts to push through legislation to ban gay marriage are destined to fail in the long run. The answer is not to keep gays apart; in fact, the simple solution is just the opposite. Homosexuality is a growing epidemic that plagues our society and should be dealt with the same way any other epidemic is dealt with: quarantine.

By gathering the gays and giving them their own space to live amongst each other, apart from the rest of the country, we not only satisfy the gays by allowing them to marry, we also satisfy those who oppose homosexuality by removing them from our society; everyone’s happy. It will also help stop the spread of homosexuality, which is clearly a learned behavior, by preventing gays from infecting the minds of our children. Since they cannot procreate, they will eventually die off.  Problem solved. No longer will these sinners be able to tear at the moral fabric of our society that was all but shredded in 1967 when the remaining 16 states with anti-interracial marriage legislation lost that battle. The only hitch is the “bisexuals,” who we’ll have to monitor and extract any children they have. Some might say, “why let them die off, why not just kill them now?” This idea is just ridiculous. Of course we will let them live out their normal lives. Why dispose of them now when we can continue to collect taxes from them for decades longer?

This plan, however, will not work on its own. The Constitution will never allow for such a thing and amending it will not do. That is why we must do away with the Constitution and instead look to a higher law, God’s law. By using the Bible as the sole law of the land and making Christianity the official religion, we will be able to cut through all the meaningless bureaucracy. Priests will replace judges and will decide whether “an eye for an eye” or “turn the other cheek” methodology will be applied. Non-Christian citizens, along with those wishing to become citizens, will be given mandatory Bible classes (Jews, of course, will only need half of these classes).  At first it may seem unfair to force a particular religion.  However, we will actually be performing a service to these people by showing them the errors of their ways and bringing the truth into their lives.

Once this is done we will then be able to go forth with the quarantine plan. Will it be easy? No. Will it take time? Yes. But we must be patient—we how can we truly call ourselves Christians if we don’t have patience?

Today is national atheist day, but I don't believe it. If I don't believe in it, does that mean it doesn't exist?—
Katie Martelle (@lavitaebella91) April 01, 2012

Well in this case, actually, yes. Because it’s not a real holiday.

Today is Atheist Day: There was a man who took the state to court, demanding that Atheists should have a national… fb.me/18S3Dmgac—
TedraSharonLamoureux (@TeaRoseWon) April 01, 2012

About your story: no there wasn’t.

It's kind of ironic that National Atheist Day falls on Palm Sunday and April Fools this year. #hmm—
KeepItSimplePolitics (@Simple_Politics) April 01, 2012

It falls on April Fools Day every year. That’s the joke. And isn’t even a real thing. So, no, it’s not ironic. #ohh

Good morning Jesus and Twitterins!

Psalm 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

#AprilFoolsNOJOKE—
Gretchen Gale (@Ivorygg) April 01, 2012

Good morning Gretchen! I don’t think Jesus can hear you. Science 14:1 Dead people can’t hear. #surpriseNOGOD

To the person who can look at this beautiful morning and say there is no God…today is your day!!—
Charles Wright (@RomeMagicman) April 01, 2012

It’s actually kind of shitty out here.

NicoleErika is embracing it:

Happy National Atheist Day, fellow heathens. It's AFD. What prank could I do? Hmm—
NicoleErika Juanillo (@iamNicoleErika) April 01, 2012

Godlesss Atheist continues to educate xians about their own religion:

RT @laditea1989: Happy atheist day #Aprilfools Matt 5:22 anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. #Atheism—
Godless Atheist (@GodlessAtheist) April 01, 2012

Stephen sums it all up nicely:

There is no god,shut the fuck up already—
stephen cameron (@steevo613) April 01, 2012

German scientist Alfred Wegener first proposed his idea of continental drift in 1912. According to Wegener, the continents appeared to fit together, much like the pieces of a jig-saw puzzle, and therefore must have been broken apart from one “supercontinent,” which he called, Urkontinent. This was the original name for the hypothetical land mass that is now referred to as Pangea.

Today, neo-Wegenerists attempt to confuse children by teaching them about plate tectonics, which is basically a rebranded version of Wegener’s original theory. What they don’t tell you is just that—it’s nothing more than a theory with no evidence to support it.

So is plate tectonics true? Surprisingly, yes! Sort of. It’s important to make a distinction between the two types of tectonics: microtectonics and macrotectonicts.

Microtectonics describes the movement of continents within an area. It is well established that continents can shift slightly from year to year. There is a slight, but measurable difference between the positioning of the continents over time.

An extreme example of microtectonics would be the shifting of the entire island of Japan by as much as 2 meters following the 9.0 magnitude earthquake that struck the Godless nation. Although this is far more than the typical movement observed, it remains within the bounds of the same area.

Macrotectonics, on the other hand, is what Wegenerian proponents attempt to convince us of. That is, the idea that continents can break apart and come together to form entirely different continents. The problem is, no one has ever observed one continent change into another continent.

Of course, a Europe and an Asia can come together to make a Eurasia; they are all part of the same area. But an Australia will never become an Africa. If Wegenerism is true, why haven’t we found any evidence of an Austrafrica?

In the end, believing in Wegenerian macrotectonics takes a leap of faith that I’m not willing to take.

Gays are not denied the right to vote, receive education, work or use public transport. They are not subjected to state violence. The Human Rights Campaign members do not have to fear the police showing up with batons, attack dogs and water cannons, as did happen when black people gathered to demand their rights in the 1950s and ’60s.”

Sounds pretty silly when you swap out the minority, doesn’t it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A little something I whipped up for reddit. Click here if you don’t get it.

Christopher Hitchens, 13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011

Reese Hershey, notable alchemist and part-time plumber, stumbled upon a previously unknown element. He found that when placed in the nostril, the element gave off a pleasant odor, and when placed on the tongue, it had a pleasant taste. He named it “candy” after his favorite stripper, John Kandi, who, according to Hershey, also had a delightful aroma. (Hershey later changed the spelling to “candy” to avoid confusion).

Candy was rare and initially only available to royalty and the very wealthy. It was thought that due to its pleasant odor, candy had heeling properties for the common affliction of stinky feet. It became popular to cut candy into squares with a razor blade, and ingest both.

As candy became more widespread, parents of poor families would send their children into rich neighborhoods to beg for this new remedy. They would often wear masks to avoid embarrassment as they went door-to-door asking the wealthy to smell their feet. If the homeowner felt the child’s feet were stinky enough, candy would be given in exchange for toilet paper—an homage to Hershey’s plumbing hobby.

This tradition of smelly kids begging the rich for handouts became known by the name of the road where it is first thought to have occurred as “Occupy Wall Street.”

And then there was something about pumpkins.

Happy Halloween!

Download this episode (right click and save)

The hiatus ends with Ryan Haupt of the Science… Sort Of podcast!

• Find out more about Science… Sort Of by visiting the website.
• Read Ryan’s stuff on iFanboy.

Stuff we talk about in this episode:

• Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com
• Rationally Speaking podcast
• Matt Dillahunty and The Atheist Experience
• Great Lakes Brewing Co.
• Harpoon Brewery
• Agora at the Atheist Film Festival

Theme music, “Lazy White Atheist Blues,” by T. Randolph Scott

This one is for all the plussers out there. But don’t worry, even if you don’t use Google+, you can still get in on the action.

This Tuesday, Jennifer Hancock will be entering the Studio via a G+ Hangout to talk about her new book, “Jen Hancock’s Handy Humanism Handbook,” and whatever else we feel like discussing.

The party starts @ 7 PM Eastern/4 PM Pacific. Plussers can join the fun by circling +Atheists Studio or +Jennifer Hancock, or by visiting hangoutparty.com, where it will also be broadcast live to the public for those who don’t use G+ or who can’t get into the hangout.

Mark your calendars and spread the word!

Here’s a clip from Jen’s appearance on ITAS last year:

I don’t have an interesting story about what I was doing 10 years ago today. I wasn’t in New York or D.C. I didn’t have family or friends in harm’s way. I was 21 years old, driving a sandwich truck in Cleveland, gathering bits information from construction workers as I went from site to site.

The chaos and tragedy of the news I was hearing stood in stark contrast to the mundane nature of my life and that day, making it particularly surreal. The day stands as a vivid memory of a foggy experience. I imagine this is not an unusual recollection of September 11th.

10 years later we are all looking back on that day and it’s important not to oversimplify when reflecting on the role religion played. Like with most things, we see a division between the left and right—one insisting that Islam is not to blame for the attacks and the other holding all Muslims responsible.

They’re both wrong. At least on those two points. And, in other ways, both sides are right. Do we really need  fall into one of these camps? Can we not say that, yes, the attacks were carried out because of Islam, and no, the Muslim family down the street are not terrorists?

Of course it would be unjust to hold all Muslims responsible and of course the blame should be laid with the disgusting perpetrators, but to suggest that the September 11th attacks were not religious or that Islam was not the driving force. And please, let’s avoid making false Scotsmen out of Osama Bin Laden and friends by claiming that they are/were not “real” Muslims.

Even President Obama, speaking to the nation after killing Bin Laden, sought to downplay Bin Laden’s religious motives, if not eliminate them. Could anything be more vile than to create a fiction about such an important event and attempt to sell it to the victims’ families just to avoid saying anything critical about any religion at any cost?

To say that Islam was not the driving force behind the attacks is to rationalize to the point of self-delusion. The Quran is filled with verses explicitly instructing Muslims to slay the unbelievers. Read them. Read them in context. See the mental gymnastics involved every time the mantra Islam is peace is uttered. Hearing what Bin Laden has said in countless interviews, fatwas, and grainy videos, can anyone really say that his actions do not stem directly from Islam and the Quran? The following are just a few kernels I picked out of the bag of Bin Laden references to God:

I’m fighting so I can die a martyr and go to heaven to meet God. Our fight now is against the Americans. (Wikiquote)

Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God. (PBS)

For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God’s word is the one exalted to the heights. (PBS)

The flip-side is that some use the undeniable blood on hands of Islam as justification for bigotry.

It is not bigotry to speak ill of Islam, especially considering the harm it has done. It is not bigotry to be fearful of someone or something, whether it be justified fear or not. It is bigotry to discriminate against innocent individuals for simply belonging to a group, to deny those people the rights we all enjoy, to commit violence against them.

The controversy that arose following news that an Islamic Center was being planned to go up on privately owned property in the general vicinity of Ground Zero is an easy example of a blatant attempt to take away the rights of others. Do we really want to start ignoring the right of the people to freely exercise their religion? (I ask this mainly of the majority Christians that made up the outspoken opposition.)

Islam is the problem. Some Muslims are the problem. I see no reason to shy away from saying this, and no reason to exaggerate it.