Google+ Followers

Friday, 22 October 2010

Muehlenberg blames “homosexual lifestyle” for gay teen suicides...

…and claims that there’s really no such thing as homophobia, and that homophobic bullying does not exist.

That’s right, check it out here and leave him a comment:

It doesn’t seem to matter to Bill that almost all the gay teen suicides in America have explicitly stated that homophobic bullying drove them to take their own lives. No, he’s happy to airily wave his hand from the other side of the world and claim that homophobia doesn’t exist, and it’s the “inherently dangerous lifestyle choice” that is responsible for the deaths of these youngsters.

What Bill Muehlenberg is claiming is that homosexuals who commit suicide have brought it on themselves for “choosing” to be gay in the first place. If only they embraced Jesus and became a right-wing bigot like him, then all would be fine and dandy.

The irony is that Bill is always banging on about “Christianophobia”, which he claims really exists; though of course homophobia does not. What “Christianophobia” means is unclear, but it seems to be Western governments’ measures to protect gay people and non-Xtians from bullying and bigotry from the likes of fundies like Muehlenberg. He sees it as his god-given right to be a bigoted bully.

As proof of this sheer hypocrisy, look no further than his rant entitled “Even More Anti-Christian Bigotry”:

Bill is asked some direct questions in the comments from sane people like Maurice Colbourne:

You really think that people like that no longer have any homosexual desires?
You really think human sexuality is so malleable that it’s a simple matter of choice?
Could you, Bill, decide, just for five minutes, to be attracted to a member of the same sex? Is that a choice within your control?
If not for you, then what makes you think that gay people can switch sexualities on a whim?

None of these questions is answered by Bill, who has just decided, against all evidence, that homosexuality is:
1. A choice
2. Caused by father not loving son enough
3. Not something anyone is born with or inherent
4. Not something that should be tolerated under any circumstances

Maurice Colbourne doesn’t appear again in the comments, so perhaps this is evidence of Bill Muehlenberg’s customary censorship of views and opinions he doesn’t like (i.e. that don’t conform to his bigoted worldview).

Poisonous toads like Bill Muehlenberg cause real damage to people’s lives with their prurient obsession with what other consenting adults do with their genitals, which is why I maintain this blog. By suggesting that gay teens who have tragically cut short their lives as a response to bullying is their own fault because of a conscious choice they made to be gay, Muehlenberg reveals just what a nasty and deranged character he really is. His audience of twisted, repressed weirdoes lap it up.

I’m all for freedom of speech, but unless Muehlenberg is prepared to deal in reality and listen to facts, I think it’s high time his blog is shut down before another youngster struggling with their sexuality is driven to take their own life to escape the hatred and vitriol of twats like Muehlenberg.

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

Proof Bill Muehlenberg is a liar

Bill Muehlenberg styles himself as someone concerned with “truth”. Most of his articles cite his attempts to get across “the truth”, which he thinks is somehow being stifled by various liberal and secularist agendas.

As will be obvious to anyone familiar with Muehlenberg’s self-righteous and hot-headed style, he doesn’t like being corrected when he is factually wrong, and rarely if ever retracts his many factual errors. Indeed, his chosen method of dealing with inconvenient truths is to censor those who point them out to him.
Here is proof.

In a recent article, entitled "Darwin, the Nazis, Euthanasia, and Christianity", Bill decided to resurrect the old canard of blaming Nazism and the “pro-euthanasia movement” on Darwin’s theory of evolution:

Putting aside for one moment the fact that Bill’s article is all mindless assertion, zero evidence, and the usual religiously-minded complete failure to understand what science is, he commits the egregious error of incorrectly titling Darwin’s book, calling it “Origin of the Species” instead of “On the Origin of Species”. It’s a common error made by many fatuously ignorant people who rail against evolution without even attempting to understand it. They want it to be “the” species, because all they are concerned about is human evolution, so choosing their own title for the book serves their devious purposes.

I politely pointed out the error to Bill on a few occasions, such as this one:

Yep, you guessed it, my comment remained “in moderation” until being deleted altogether. Bill didn’t correct his mistake because he knows full well that his readership, are, like him, too stupid and biased to notice that he can’t even correctly name the book he’s blaming for causing Nazism!

Well I don’t know about you but I’m convinced!

Bill is a liar, an ignoramus and a propagandist, who will continue to allow spurious lies to stand even when they have been pointed out to him and corrected. On previous occasions I have pointed out typos to him, and lo and behold, the next time I checked the article, amendments had been made. On this occasion Bill would rather hide behind lies to push his agenda.

Monday, 26 July 2010

Bill Muehlenberg and "the truth"

Another of Bill Muehlenberg's cheap shots is to smugly say that he's only willing to give "genuine truth seekers" the time of day if the comment on his articles.

This means that anyone who disagrees with Bill's opinion will be censored, moderated, or given Bill's customary "last word" treatment.

Therefore anyone who doesn't agree with Bill isn't genuinely seeking the truth!

And Bill claims not to be a bigot and a theocratic bully! Hypocrites so often can't see their own hypocrisy, and Bill is no exception.

Agree with Bill on his website, or you're out on your ear and just a time waster.

Friday, 16 July 2010

Bill Muehlenberg's Audience

A quick look at the number of comments under any of Bill's articles shows you everything you need to know about the mentality of the weirdoes he attracts to CultureWatch.

When he lets off steam with an article pointing out what an insidious threat gayness is to everyone and everything (especially the children!) there's an instant deluge of comments by freaks like David Skinner and 40+ year-old virgin (by his own admission! - I wonder if he's at all repressed and closeted?) Mark Rabich, in agreeance, and bemoaning the fact that they can't get away with bullying homosexuals into suicide any more. As many as thirty comments are soon authorised by the god-like Bill, who sifts through them to accept the ones that agree with him.

Yet when he posts one of his (extremely rare) devotionals, or commentaries on bible passages, he's lucky to get a handful of comments!

So it's pretty clear that the fundie xtian retards he attracts to his site are FAR MORE interested in gay-bashing than in anything to do with the bible!

Yet more proof, if any were needed, that the increasing secularisation of the West has led to religion becoming increasingly solely followed by extremist nutjobs who hold the alleged ideals purely for their own bigoted ends. Religion is still being used as a get-out-of-jail-free card for holding and espousing bigoted views.

Want to bash gay people? Want to spread lies against secularists and atheists? Want to pretend that science hasn't moved on in the last two thousands years and that believing humans were specially created and the universe magicked up for their benefit alone is an intellectually defensible position? Be a religionist! Just don't get all prissy and upset when sane people rip the shit out of you and your demented views.

More CultureWatch censorship!

Well it seems that dear old Bill Muehlenberg really is running scared.

I've already written at length how he habitually censors anyone who challenges his views (the DEFINITION of a bigot) on his xtian fundie website Culture Watch. Now it seems he's not content with that.

All the essays on this blog are also uploaded to Myspace and Facebook. Bill has got wind of that, and managed to have the Facebook fan page dedicated to challenging his bigoted theocratic views deleted.

Enjoy your shallow victory, Bill. I will be re-establishing a page on Facebook with a group called CultureWatch Watch, in which I will re-upload all the content you can find on this blog, and redouble my efforts to expose Bill Muehlenberg for the bigot, coward, bully and totalitarian that he is.

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

The Amazing Extent of Bill Muehlenberg's Hypocrisy

One of Bill Muehlenberg’s more recent rants was an article entitled “Atheists Say the Silliest Things”. In it, he throws as many ad hominem insults as he can at those who have decided to reject mythology and use evidence and reason to decide what they believe. He then acts all surprised and hurt when some atheists respond to his attack by using their secret weapon – reason.

What’s set off this infantile wailing is the Global Atheist Convention in Australia, which attracted support from the likes of Richard Dawkins and Russell Blackford. To Muehlenberg, such eminent people are simply pushing their “anti-god agenda”. (Remember folks: if you disagree with dear old Uncle Bill it is because you have an “agenda” to “push”. Which he wouldn’t dream of doing, of course.)

I’m not interested so much in the mud Muehlenberg chooses to sling at those who don’t embrace his fantasies in this article, as he recycles the same old canards ad infinitum to an already brainwashed readership. What caught my eye was the exchanges he had in the comments section with atheists who attempt to use reason and evidence to put Bill right on a few unsubstantiated charges. Dear, oh dear. Boy, does it show up Muehlenberg’s infantile mind, his hypocrisy and his stupidity.

First of all Bill spins his usual gross error that Christians have the monopoly on charity because he’s personally not aware of any “aid group set up specifically by committed ideological atheists”. When contributor Ben cites the Red Cross (there are dozens of others: Doctors Without Borders, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, Non-Believers Giving Aid etc.) Bill tells him that the cross in the Red Cross stands for the Christian Cross. This is a lie Bill has spun before, but Ben does his homework and comments afresh that the Red Cross is a reversal of the Swiss National flag. Having been caught out, any reasonable person would apologize. What does Bill do? Change the goalposts and say the founder of the Red Cross was a calvanist and therefore it is a Christian charity after all!

Despite the extreme fatuousness of Muehlenberg’s defence of his delusions, a few other rationalists attempted to add the soothing balm of logic to Bill’s site. Note the extremely temperate and polite language of poster Heath, who says:

I will not make any derogatory points here as I am not in the mood for a debate, merely to lay my thoughts on the table and show some reasoning.

He goes on in this vein, patiently explaining why he is an atheist and how atheists not only can, but also of course do have morals.

Here are a few choice quotes from Bill’s heavy-handed response:

You do not seem to have read carefully what has been said here.

Hitler and the Nazis thought what they were doing was right. Do you agree with them?

Despite the idiotic responses, Heath attempts a few more posts, responding to Bill’s flimsy arguments that atheists can only be moral by accidentally hijacking the code of conduct of theocrats. But Bill has heard enough of Heath’s defence of living a good life without god and responds with his usual delicacy of touch, compassion, grace and tolerance. Here’s the edited highlights:

They went wrong big time and embraced the Nazis. Why do you assume you and your society will not?

What a frightening and arrogant place to be.

Wow, what a sad place to be in.

I must ask why you have even bothered to come here in the first place. If you were on a search for truth and seeking answers to the big question of life, I would happily spend all the time necessary with you. But if you just like to have little debates, and get your jollies out of having your intellectual palette tickled, then sorry, I am not at all interested.

But if you see this as just a little mind game, then I will have to move on to more serious commentators here.

What should merit an apology is an attitude which arrogantly says I have made up my mind and don’t plan to change anything, as you have told us. That is a scary place to be in.

But the most important point is why you even come here. As I said, if it is simply to engage in little mind games, please consider going elsewhere. These issues are far too important to simply engage is futile intellectual sparring. And you should not be so presumptuous that you will be blessed to live to be 60. If tragically your life is cut short, you really want to be ready for that fact.

You’ll see at once, when Bill’s comments are reduced to nuggets, that he repeats himself ad infinitum, regardless of what the rationalist has posted. And considering his treatment of Ben, his demand for an apology is breathtakingly hypocritical. Rationalist Heath, bless him, asks Bill to:

please respect my point of view and stop repeating yourself

but you may as well ask a clergyman to stop raping children. Bill’s irony meter reaches critical in his next response to Heath:

Thus I have abandoned my atheism and embraced theism. If any solid counter evidence is forthcoming, I will examine that as well. I have been open to change. Are you?

So you really need to get up to speed on some of these debates, instead of throwing out completely reckless and wild charges lacking a grain of truth. It simply highlights the flimsiness of your ‘arguments’. If you don’t like my replies, then no one is forcing you to keep coming back here.

Against more atheist posters, Bill replies with his characteristic humility, charm and openness:

you are woefully out of your depth

I have heard plenty of atheists argue ad infinitum, ad nauseam, just like you.

...thankfully I have moved on, while you atheists are still stuck in your narrow little world

You claim that you are “not trying to convert anyone”. But of course you are. Why even bother to come here otherwise?

It is such a sad, pitiable and foolish worldview these atheists force themselves to live with.

And theists can certainly seize the day, but for atheists their tiny reductionist box seems to make that difficult to achieve to any worthwhile degree.
And then has the audacity to say:

Of course the good thing about a democracy is that we can have these debates, although so many of the famous god-haters really want to see all such debate shut down, since they believe all religion is pure evil, and can only harm society.

After which Heath posts a response to Bill. Bill’s response to Heath, as we can tell from Bill’s above quote, is to “debate”, right? Because it’s those evil atheists who want to have “debate shut down”. Right? Well, how’s this for hypocrisy:

Our friend Heath has just submitted yet another comment, but it just the same old same old, so I have nipped it in the bud. I have exercised my unofficial ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy here. He has had a good run, but shows not the slightest sign of genuine inquiry – just argument for argument’s sake. As I have said many times before, I simply am not interested in wasting my time – or anyone else’s – with those who have their minds made up and simply want to engage in their little debates for whatever reason. I will spend all the time in the world with genuine seekers and those asking honest questions. But I am not into playing little debate games. So the invitation is this: honest inquirers are welcome, but those who just want to push their agenda or engage in mind games are not.

Since Bill’s definition of “pushing an agenda” is “anyone who dares to post anything that disagrees with me”, he’s found a neat way of censoring all opinions that he disagrees with, and still, to the uncritical, braindead readership he attracts, pass himself off as reasonable and interested in “truth” and “debate”. I can barely find words to describe such nauseating hypocrisy and self-deception.

Having been censored, Heath responds with the entirely accurate, warranted and still temperate:

I consider myself a fool for trying to argue with an evangelist, especially one as ignorant as yourself. I don’t mind if you don’t post this, but at least you read it.

Have a good day!

Which Bill allows to be published because it shows how “evil” these atheists really are with their “agendas” to “push”. He wastes no time in rushing to point this out to his regular godbotherers:

I always love it the way atheists come to a site like this. At first they are all sweetness and light. They can put on such a good act. But before you know it their real nature starts to emerge. Their ugly, hate-filled intolerance starts to shine forth big time. They pretend to be oh so tolerant and accepting, but then they bare their fangs. Of course most of their hate-filled comments I have to send straight to the bin. But I let the two recent ones by you two in to show the world what we are up against.

Any irony meters the world over lie in smoking ruins. How dare he accuse Heath of posting “hate-filled” comments? Anyone who reads the comments objectively will see that all of the intolerance, hatred, lies, deception, agenda-pushing, smearing, narrow-mindedness and crass stupidity comes entirely from Bill Muehlenberg.

He’s like a barely-literate King Lear: a stupid old fool shouting at the wind. He is a true exponent of the weakness of the theistic mindset. It’s not just narrow and intolerant, but specifically, it’s childish. Muehlenberg’s mind occupies a tiny little space in which only his delusions and preconceptions are allowed to exist. Anyone who tries to shed a little light is met with a screaming tantrum and flailing arms. He’s so pitifully idiotic that one almost feels sorry for him. However, he does fulfil a great public service. I can think of no better advertisement for the folly, inanity and shallowness of the religious mindset.

Yes indeed. Muehlenberg one of the best adverts for atheism.

Keep up the good work, Bill!

Tuesday, 9 February 2010

Bill Muehlenberg and Family Values

One of the many cheap tricks of the religious right, employed often by Muehlenberg, is to maintain that they stand for good old-fashioned "family values", and that the "secular left" is hell-bent on destroying their cherished "family values" and the whole of society along with it.

Digging a little deeper, it's interesting to uncover what Muehlenberg and his cronies mean by "family values". Clearly, it is the oppressive and forceful implementation of their far-right Christian agenda on absolutely everyone, where anybody who would wish to disagree or live their life differently is to be condemned.

You can see the origin of this sort of pompous self-aggrandizement and nastiness. It is steeped in the theology of the desert religion Muehlenberg subscribes to - Christianity. Jesus tells his followers that they must believe that he is the son of god (as well as god 'him'self). If they do, they will live happily ever after (ah, what a fairytale) after death. If they don't believe him, and don't love god, then they will be abandoned to spend eternity in a fiery hell. In other words, the love is conditional, and the condition is an absolute capitulation of individual thought. Christianity entices the faithful to love god under threat of fear and intimidation. This set the model for the patriarch so common in Victorian fiction; the ridding of which from society has done inestimable good in the minimizing of child abuse and torture.

It's interesting to note the logical conclusion of this inducement to love and respect through using fear, intimidation and abuse of power. Just look at the Catholic Church and its history of systematic and endemic child torture and rape. Clearly, most modern parents don't subscribe to this kind of whackjob Bronze Age morality. Whatever else it is, it isn't love.

Bill, however, grabs this immoral ideology with both hands. Consider this letter he sent to the Herald Sun in which he advocates the use of violence and intimidation in disciplining children:

Suggested legislation which would ban the smacking of children, except with an open hand, is counterproductive … [T]here is wisdom in using an object, e.g., a wooden dowel. First, it disassociates the punishment from the parent. Otherwise the hand of the parent might become an object of fear, instead of love and affection. In the same way animal trainers recommend using an object instead of the hand …

- Bill Muehlenberg, letter in Herald Sun, 19 Oct. 1998, re-printed in Salt Shakers Newsletter, Nov. 1998, 11
Yes, you read correctly. The angry god of the old testament would be proud of you Bill, but I doubt your children are, especially since you compare rearing them to training animals.

I wonder if one or more of Bill's children is gay or atheist? I can only imagine what Bill's reaction would be if he found out. Faced with having to reject the disgusting ideology that he's dedicated his life to and embrace his child who has their own mind and has dared to use it: or use his crazy beliefs to justify cutting off his own child from the family, what would Muehlenberg do? It's a no-brainer - his own child would have to go.

After all, Bill is a man who gave up his day job and now supports his entire family based solely on the income he gains from peddling his version of the Christian superstition to the gullible; sacrificing the wellbeing of his wife and children and their security in order to satisfy his bloated ego and ridiculous obsession.

It is desperately sad that if any of his kids is gay or atheist they would have to conceal, deceive and lie until the day Bill dies rather than have an honest relationship with their father, for fear of the consequences of denuding him of his fantasy. My heart aches for Bill's family.

Bill Muehlenberg the family values man? They'd be better off without him, he's so far beyond help, and so steeped in the values of First Century peasants that most societies have long since consigned to the scrapheap.