Google+ Followers

Friday, 21 December 2012

Muehlenberg Blames Connecticut Massacre on... atheism and evolution


"We still need to discover more about the details of all this", Bill Muehlenberg claims in "Another Mass Shooting", as the bodies of over a score of infants lie cold in a morgue. There's only one thing he's sure about:

Entire generations now in the West have been raised on a steady diet of various things, all of which would logically seem to lead to this very behaviour. 
We have had pounded into our heads the idea that there is no God; that there are no moral absolutes; that everything is relative and a matter of personal taste; that we are all just here as an accident of evolutionary processes... We have insisted that one can never judge another person’s behaviour or activity, and we must embrace any and all lifestyles and actions. 
We have insisted that all religious beliefs be banned from the public arena, and that anyone who dares to stand for biblical truth must be denounced as a wowser, a bigot, and an intolerant twit imposing his morals on others.

Bill's muddled rant seems not to understand, as most rabid right-wingers don't, that the US has always enjoyed a separation of church and state, and that nobody has insisted on religious beliefs being "banned from the public arena". This is merely how he chooses to interpret the defence of that separation.

In a few sentences he blames everything he hates for the massacre in Connecticut, the fact that some people are gay and most in society "tolerate" it and don't disown gay friends and family; the fact that educated humans are outgrowing religious belief; and the fact that evolution is the bedrock of the biological sciences. According to Bill, unless everyone subscribes to his fundamentalist Xtian wingnuttery, massacre is the only possible end result.

What absolute baloney.

He then goes on to suggest that the only way to tackle gun crime is...

MORE GUNS!

Do countries with strong gun control laws have lower murder rates? Only if you cherry-pick the data.

Bill, that is an outright lie. Let's look at some stats, in the polite comment I posted which picks apart his idiotic assertions:



Do you think he posted it?

Of course not, because Bill wants everyone to think his infantile "arguments" are beyond criticism.

As he boasts when tackling a dissenter he chooses to publish:

Always great to see how the secular left “argues”. Not a scrap of evidence, facts, data, reason, rational discussion, or informed debate; just heaps of mud-slinging, name-calling and ugly ad hominems. But thanks again for demonstrating to the whole world how your side has no intellectual leg to stand on, relying instead simply on nasty abuse, hate and intolerance.

Would that be because if anyone on the secular left posts a polite comment pointing out with cold facts how gravely mistaken you are that you ignore them, refuse to post them, and refuse to engage in debate, whilst brazenly lying that "the other side" present "not a scrap of evidence"?

Yes, yes it would. Bill Muehlenberg runs a million miles from honest debate because he simply will not engage with anyone who disagrees with him and presents valid arguments. Perhaps because he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on?

Or perhaps some of his buddies would like to suggest why my comment was never published and why Bill ignored and evaded? If it's not because he's a liar and a fraud - then why?

A day after I posted my comment Bill posted saying:

I notice once again that no evidence has been presented as to why my data and facts are wrong. 

This is why I keep this blog - to expose Bill Muehlenberg as the shameless liar he is.

To date none of his buddies have offered any defence of Muehlenberg's lies and idiotic reasoning. The comment so far is as vacuous as usual.

Friday, 2 November 2012

Muehlenberg Stumped

Angry bigot Bill Muehlenberg rants in 'Another Week, Another Batch Of Acceptance And Diversity' that Xtians are having their freedoms removed because they're no longer allowed to legally discriminate against gays.

He is appalled that an Xtian couple who turned a married gay couple away from their B&B have been found guilty of discrimination.

I asked him if he thinks it would be acceptable if B&B owners turned him away simply for being Xtian. It would amount to the same thing. Here's a screenshot of my comment:

Now Bill claims he only "censors" comments that are rude or abusive.

What is rude and abusive about that?

Or can it be that THE BIGOT HAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE FOR HIS BIGOTRY?

No answer indeed!

Muehlenberg is a liar, a hypocrite, a bigot and a bully. He's also a coward, since he's not prepared to justify his unconscionable beliefs.

Tuesday, 11 September 2012

An Open Invitation To Mark Rabich

Bill's virginal favourite Mark Rabich comments of this blog that:

I’ve been aware of some of that stuff for ages, but in my experience most of them don’t even have the courage of their convictions enough to use their real name. That says enough right there. What a waste of time it would be to engage with these haters online. They could have someone rise from the dead in front of them and they would not believe! And when faced with an (intellectual) battle, they send a sock puppet or a remote control robot instead.
You tell me what kind of person you would rather have influencing culture – ones who want to have a civil debate and discuss evidence to get closer and closer at truth, or ones resorting to obsessive personal-attack websites hiding behind anonymous web-identities and promoting hateful speech and even death threats?
Death threats! Are you such a paranoid Xtian that you perceive people taking the piss out of you and your nasty beliefs as "death threats". Perhaps you can, for clarity Rabich, point out a "death" threat, or a threat of physical violence of any kind, on this blog.

As for your assertion that you can offer an "intellectual battle", come and discuss with us, Mark! In complete contrast to your buddy Bill I promise I won't censor you. If your reasons for believing are so watertight, let's have them!





Are you on?

Now Muehlenberg Even Savages Fellow Xtians...

 Until recently I laboured under the misapprehension that it was only non-Christians, gays and atheists that were the victims of Muehlenberg's bullying and general nastiness. Then yesterday I had the most extraordinary comment left by a gentleman called Alan Rowe, saying that he's a Christian who had posted on Bill Muehlenberg's Culturewatch website and quickly found himself banned, blacklisted, and the victim of an abusive attack by Bill and his rottweilers.

His offence? Staunch atheism? Is he gay? No.

So what did he do to earn the wrath of Muehlenberg? Did he swear? Name call?

None of the above.

Alan has kindly allowed me to reproduce his comment for this article:

I'm not the sort of person you would expect or even welcome here. I'm a Christian and always have been. My wife and I regularly attend church, though not as much as we probably should. Politically I'm fairly conservative - or "centre right" as I like to call myself.
Alan, anyone who wants to can post here. I don't hate Christians, I get on with the vast majority of them I work with and even have a few in the family! I only loathe Bill Muehlenberg because he is a bully who is impervious to reason, who resorts to censorship and shouting because he doesn't know how to debate rationally. This blog attacks Muehlenberg and his beliefs, not your average Xtian believer.

A friend of mine who will rename nameless as their name is probably mud in these parts, since they regularly visit Mr Muehlenberg's site, recommended Culturewatch to me, and although I found a few articles I read through more aggressive in tone than I generally care for, I nevertheless found much to agree with.
Hmm. OK, Alan, we'll let that go...
I decided to test the water by posting a comment on an article about abortion [Another Wolf, Alas] and being new I didn't want to rock the boat, but I couldn't help but notice that there was nothing in the article [ed - a piece about a priest called Father MacLeod who had actively protected women seeking an abortion from protestors outside an abortion clinic] that said that Father MacLeod held a pro-abortion stance. I read it simply that he saw it as his Christian duty to protect women, whether or not they were acting in accordance to his own principles. Things then got very quickly out of hand. Mr Muehlenberg quickly posted a reply that was aimed at putting me in my place, possibly because I was new. Others took it as their cue to follow, and I felt like I had set off a pack of wolves. I posted further comments aimed at calming the situation. You can see the comments for yourself. I was attempting to calm everyone down, telling them in no uncertain terms that I am staunchly anti-abortion and that I would join them in condemning Father MacLeod if it turned out that he was pro-abortion. All I pleaded for was that we exercise caution and acquire evidence against Father MacLeod before condemning him out of hand.
As you can see from Mr Muehlenberg's reaction, my plea for a bit of cool-headedness resulted in me being banned from his website. I was desperately upset. What had I done to upset them? I hate upsetting people. In fact my wife came home from work to find me in tears about it all. I've barely been able to sleep I'm so shaken by it. You should see the comments Mr Muehlenberg allowed to be posted about me. It's like something out of Orwell's one-minute hate. I wasn't allowed to reply, even to the posters who had written directly to me.
    
Alas, Alan's experience is nothing new but all par for the course over on the aggressive and vigorously censored Culturwatch. As I have repeatedly documented on this blog before, the last thing Muehlenberg is interested in is open and honest debate, truth and evidence. All he cares about is aggressively pushing his agenda. Hence his absurd "four strikes and you're out policy". This amounts to saying: "You have four chances to entirely agree with me and kiss my ass or I'll ban you from my website." So much for openness and debate, Bill!

Alan saved the last comment that he posted on Culturewatch, only part of which Bill allowed to be published, and only then to try to show Alan in a bad light. Alan hasn't (and even now won't!) said anything bad about Bill. This is what he posted:

My wife came home from work and found me in tears.

I showed her the comments from you on this site and she was appalled. "You're making it clear you're totally anti-abortion, all you're saying is you want to be sure the priest definitely has a pro-abortion stance before condemning him." She couldn't believe the level of personal abuse directed at me simply for urging caution that you allowed to be published.

Your site was recommended to me by a friend of mine, and they too have changed your opinion of you following the events of last night. In fact, they had told me they were considering making a financial donation to your ministry at Christmastime. Now they will donate elsewhere.

You may be interested to know that I Googled your name to find out more about you. One of the suggested searches was "Bill Muehlenberg bigot" and halfway down the first page was a link to a blog, seemingly run by rabid atheists, criticising you. They may be God-haters but they certainly have the measure of you, Mr Muehlenberg.

Unlike you, I am not one for mud-slinging, name-calling and twisting other people's words to serve my own agenda. I have however left a comment on the atheists' blog simply stating my experience of posting here. It remains to be seen whether atheists are more receptive to having a polite and temperate discussion than you evidently are.

You are a horrible man, Mr Muehlenberg. Sadly I would go so far as to say that. You deeply upset me last night, and so unnecessarily since on the key issue of abortion we wholly agree. But alas with bullies like you acting as spokespeople for Christ, it is no wonder young people are turning their backs on the Church all over the West. You think I'm the problem not the solution?

I'd say the same of you.

Have a really great day.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Rowe, Christian and staunch anti-abortionist.

Compare this to what Bill allowed to be posted:

You may be interested to know that I Googled your name to find out more about you. One of the suggested searches was “Bill Muehlenberg bigot” and halfway down the first page was a link to a blog, seemingly run by rabid atheists, criticising you. They may be God-haters but they certainly have the measure of you, Mr Muehlenberg.

Unlike you, I am not one for mud-slinging, name-calling and twisting other people’s words to serve my own agenda. I have however left a comment on the atheists’ blog simply stating my experience of posting here.

Have a really great day.

Alan Rowe
So much for distortion of the truth in order to push an agenda. Bill hides behind half truths, lies, and deliberate distortion of other people's words. Alan Rowe has done his bit in exposing Muehlenberg for the bully and manipulator he really is. It's time other Xtians woke up and recognised Muehlenberg for the fraud and bully he is too.

Monday, 3 September 2012

He Still Writes, Sanctimoniously...

Dear old Bill's latest piece de resistance is He Still Stands, Waiting... in which he claims that anyone who disagrees with him, or takes the time and trouble to leave a comment on his blog pointing out the manifold ways in which he is mistaken, it is really because:

I realise that so many of these folks are deep down really quite unhappy and messed up, and they are lashing out as a way to cope.

That's right: Bill believes that even people who dare to disagree with him are really, actually, deep down agreeing with him! He seems to think it's absolutely impossible for anyone to hold a contrary view to his vile theocratic one.

He also seems to think that maintaining a blog in which he daily pours hatred and scorn upon all non-extremist Xtians (gays and atheists in particular suffer torrential abuse from Bill's poisoned pen, and Muslims and liberal Xtians, though less often attacked, fare no better) in which he proposes the implementation of extremist views - gays should either "convert" or hide themselves away from polite society - atheists, Muslims and those of other faiths are wrong and should be happy to be dictated to by the "correct" faith - shouldn't result in any criticism.

Bill's problem is not only his utter failure to conceptualise the stark reality that somebody might actually disagree with him for valid reasons, but that he also perceives all criticism of his views as attacks upon his person. This is why he is so vicious in his denunciations of the mildest dissent.

In the early days when the hate mail poured in I just trashed it right away. I sure did not want the rest of my family to see this sick, perverted and diabolical stuff.... But the stark truth is, these guys tend to be the most intolerant, hate-filled people on the planet. And I have their comments to prove it. 

Oh, diddums. Want to avoid people using words you don't want to hear? Stop with the hate. My solution, dear old Bill? Talk to an atheist or a gay person instead of dehumanizing them and targeting them for abuse.

There, that's my example of "intolerant, hate-filled hate mail".

So convinced is Bill that he's right that he posts this little gem:

So I know that God waited patiently for me, and he is doing the same for all my many critics.

I'm not sure I've ever read anything more smug and sanctimonious. Bill actually thinks that those who disagree with him will sooner or later "see the light". It can't possibly be the case that we actually think his beliefs are ridiculous, unsubstantiated nonsense. No, we're just lashing out at Bill because we're unhappy, and jealous that he has it so right, and if only we listened to everything he said the world would be perfect.

The hope is many of these folks will one day come to see the love and grace of God, and recognise how bad the pigsty really is.

That's very presumptuous, Bill. You haven't seen my house. I keep it very neat and tidy I'll have you know. Seriously though: all non-fundies are living in a "pigsty"? Way to reach out to your "critics" Bill! You're really winning me over...

Thus if you are one of those who sometimes – or often – come to my site, leaving rather ugly and vicious comments, be forewarned: I am praying for you and God is still graciously waiting for you. And Jesus is still standing there, with his extended arms revealing his nail-scarred hands.

Well I'll sleep a lot sounder knowing that. And where's your evidence for the last bit? Sorry, more "abuse" from me there.

I posted a comment as Holly Hancock, pointing out that:

You receive what you perceive to be abusive comments (no doubt you’ll perceive this one in the same way) because you write with such utter disdain for anyone and everyone who doesn’t embrace your worldview, engaging in name-calling that you claim to find so hurtful when directed at you. Atheists are always “self-centred”, “arrogant” etc. Gay people are always “fascists”, “intolerant”. Your language is dehumanising.

and Bill replied that he only criticises the "militant" gays, you know the people who:

declared war on my faith, my freedom and my family

Yes, not a hint of overstatement there. I believe gays were round at Bill's house in a pink tank holding a revolver to his head and... christ in a canoe does the idiot know what "war" actually means? How insulting to people who've actually been involved in armed conflict. What he means is he can't tolerate knowing that other people do things with the backing of law and the support of society that he personally finds distasteful. That's what he means by "war". He is being forced to tolerate other people doing things he disapproves of. "War". Yep, not in any dictionary I've ever seen. 

I wrote back also pointing out that he made no defence of the accusation that he's always disparaging of atheists, but this awkward truth didn't see the light of day. I would have died of shock if it had.

The idiotic comment award goes to Mark Harrison (it barely needs pointing out, but his whole "argument" never applies in reverse). And Ursula Bennett is incredulous that anyone could find Bill "uneducated" when he reads "200 books a year at least". Ursula my dove pet, he's uneducated because the books are all on the same frigging subject! If I only ever read books about making plum jam I would be knowledgeable about the subject of plum jam but deeply ignorant and uneducated about everything else. I'd probably not believe in evolution, being uneducated and ignorant of the facts. I'd still be uneducated if I read 600 books a day on making plum jam.

I wonder how many people has Bill Muehlenberg converted to his extremist brand of Xtianity in all the years he's been ranting and raving? One? I doubt it. People see him for what he really is: a sanctimonious windbag who's deluded and full of anger and hatred. Only people who already agree with him from the outset will find anything worthwhile in his blog posts.



Pointing out that he's a vicious idiot is "abuse" and "war". Bill's lot distort language so much it becomes meaningless. Why not do something to tackle poverty, disease, child abuse? No, his little god created the universe so that Bill could rant and rave about people who have the temerity to not believe in his pathetic little fictions.




A likely story...

Tuesday, 24 July 2012

The poisoned Beardie Weirdie blames it all on atheists and gays... quelle surprise!


According to Bill Muehlenberg, the Colorado massacre at a Batman movie was undertaken by James Holmes because he had been studying neuroscience. Yes, this man is a killer, according to Bill, because Bill surmises (without a shred of evidence) that he holds an "evolutionary and naturalistic worldview".

Right, so that would be the worldview that led to modern science and medicine? The worldview that created vaccinations for children and rid the developed world of centuries worth of malignant and previously-fatal illnesses? The worldview that massively reduced infant mortality to near zero and provided longer, healthier lives for most citizens? The worldview that led to an understanding of human psychology and started to treat the mentally ill with compassion and help them, rather than treating them as if they're possessed by devils or deformed as a punishment from some fictional god?

Thanks, Bill, but I'll bin your god-fearing quackery and stick to the modern scientific world all the same, thanks.

If people like Muehlenberg had their way we'd return to the days when the mentally ill were put to death or cast out of society. He thinks it preferable that we cower and god-bother rather than figure out what reality is and treat illness and understand natural disaster.

In line with his cheap shot about (essentially) blaming the massacre on "atheism" (and conveniently ignoring the fact that the biggest killer of recent years Breivik was a committed Xtian) I'm willing to wager if Bill was diagnosed as having Alzheimer's or Parkinsons, he wouldn't just say "I don't believe in your material, evolutionary and naturalistic world where brain and mind are the same thing - you can lump your medication I'll stick to prayer" - he'd be first in line for treatment and find ways to conveniently ignore or explain away his hypocrisy through cognitive dissonance. After all, Tim Berners Lee who invented the internet isn't a practicing Xtian and Bill would no doubt put him in the atheist camp. Bill is happy enough to ignore that Xtianity has got him (and all its followers) precisely nowhere and enjoy all the benefits of science instead!

In an aricle "Statutory Marriage: Object-Lovers Unite!" (what a witty pun, Bill, you really are wasted not pursuing [intentional] comedy) Bill reports on a woman with objectum sexuality who has fallen in love with the Statue Of Liberty. Bill is quick to pounce on this woman's misfortune to suggest that her sexual love for the Statue of Liberty is the equivalence of homosexual love, and the fact that she can't legally marry the Statue of Liberty is no less unjust than the fact that in most countries gay people still can't marry.

He ends with this rather bizarre line:

Objectphiliacs of the world unite – you have nothing to lose but your rather kinky chains!

So of course, the emotional love, support, encouragement and physical affection that gay couples show one another: the shared financial burden, the home building, the nurturing of family - everything that goes to make a committed gay adult relationship in Bill's eyes simply doesn't exist. No, according to Bill, two men or two women loving each other is the same as them loving a cardboard box.

He's made the same pathetic, stupid and bigoted point many times before on his blog, and it illustrates how he doesn't even see gay people as human. Resident twat David Skinner comments that the woman's relationship ticks all the boxes to be recognised as valid, including being "consensual". What an idiotic thing to say. How exactly, Skinner, does the Statue Of Liberty consent or return the woman's love? Naturally Bill is too thick to notice this, blinded by his need to see gay people as inanimate objects worthy of being shunned.

Of course, many may comment on the homoeroticism of Bill and many of his ilk worshipping until they cream their pants a non-existent sky fairy or his allegeded human (and also male) "son". Bill expects us not only to tolerate his erotic love for SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST but expects us to think he's a better person as a consequence!

As usual, Bill wants it all on his own terms. "Think exactly like me or I'll treat you as if you're not human and have no rights," could be Bill's motto. Whilst he tosses himself off onto the sticky pages of his picture book bible. What a reprehensible excuse for a human being BM is.

Monday, 18 June 2012

The Hypocrisy of Muehlenberg Reaches New Heights

Sometimes Bill Muehlenberg is so hypocritical the only reasonable response is to be astounded either at his balls-out audacity in believing that nobody will notice; or wonder if he's so mired in bitterness, anger and hatred against gay people that he's simply blinded to his own staggering hypocrisy.

What's he done to reveal his hypocrisy?

Take the contrast between two recent articles he's penned on the question: should people give money to charities whose ethos they disagree with?

Here's Bill's take on the matter in his article Homosexual Haters Against The Salvation Army:

No matter how wonderful and charitable and philanthropic and helpful a group or person may be, if they do not fully grovel before the homosexual militants, they will be targeted and treated with utter contempt and disgust by the bullies at the “tolerance” brigade. These thugs excel in intimidation, harassment, bullying and hate. And even such enormously dedicated charity groups like the Salvation Army will be treated like dirt if they do not bow the knee to the new homosexual tyranny. In November of last year the gaystapo declared war on the Salvos for daring to say marriage was between a man and a woman.

OMG! Sounds awful! What happened?

Turns out a gay blogger called Bil Browning wrote this on his internet blog:

If you care about gay rights, you’ll skip their bucket in favor of a charity that doesn’t actively discriminate against the LGBT community.

Pop star Darren Hayes waded in, similarly suggesting that LGBT and people sympathetic to LGBT rights should think twice before donating to the Salvation Army. Nothing more than that. 

Yet from Hayes and Browning encouraging people to think twice before donating to the Salvos Muehlenberg concludes:

Well there you have it folks. The homosexual jackboots want to see the Salvation Army closed down for its crimes against humanity... What a miserable hate-filled bunch they really are.

Really? Who is trying to "close down" the Salvation Army, Bill? What "crimes"? What are you even talking about?

Leaving aside Bill's hysterical (in both senses of the word) conclusion, let's look at another article of Bill's posted only two days previously called Do You Know Where Your Money Is Going?

I'll quote directly from Bill:

We are not to waste our money, nor should we be giving our money away to bad or harmful causes.Yet sadly this is happening all the time. Undiscerning Christians are giving money to all sorts of questionable groups and dubious causes. And sometimes the group and cause may be good in themselves, but there is still misuse of money. For example, Amnesty International has been quite open about its support of pro-abortion activities around the world. So organisations or charities which may have basically good purposes – eg., feed the poor, stand up for human rights – may have other activities which they are involved in which should not be getting the money of believers. Believers really do need to be discerning and wise here, and make sure they are not funding unbiblical and/or sinful activities.

In a long rambling article Bill has a pop at various charities for not entirely subscribing to his militant Xtian agenda and then concludes:

One day we will all stand before our Lord to give an account of our Christian life. And that will include what sort of stewards we were of the finances he provided us with. In this area – like so many others – good intentions alone are not enough. Good intentions can often lead to very bad and even quite sinful outcomes. So please be careful, wise and discerning in what you do with your money.

So, according to Bill Muehlenberg, gay people not donating money to the homophobic Salvation Army is evidence that they are "militant", "hate-filled" "bigoted" and trying to "close down" the charity in question. Because of this he feels justified in slinging abuse like "gaystapo" and "homosexual jackboots" around.

Yet at the same time it's perfectly acceptable for him to tell  Xtians to not donate to certain charities that don't "bend the knee" to his agenda. This is evidence that he is being "careful, wise and discerning", and not at all acting like the "militant Xtapo" with his hate-filled ways who is clearly trying to "close down" Doctors Without Borders, YWCA, Oxfam and World Vision!

It's proof of Muehlenberg's nauseating hypocrisy, and also of his sheer hatred of gay people that he will condemn them with the foulest abusive language for behaving in exactlty the same way he is behaving and even encouraging other Xtians to behave!

Can anyone believe the hypocrisy of this guy?

Saturday, 12 May 2012

The Truth Is Such a Threat to Bill Muehlenberg

Bill's whole worldview depends on twisting the truth to make it conform to his dogma, and his dogma insists that gay people are a nuisance who shouldn't exist. They're not part of his invisible friend's "plans" for humanity, apparently.

In a recent article entitled  Hijacking Good Causes To Promote Radical Agendas Bill shows up his ugly paranoid mind for what it really is. He seriously argues that the moves to prevent anti-gay bullying is motivated entirely by demonic forces wanting to push the "homosexual agenda". What is the "homosexual agenda" Bill? As far as I can tell it's the not unreasonable request to equal rights and the right to a life free from harrassment and bullying. But no, Bill suggests that young vulnerable gay people should be left to the mercy of the bullies, because to confront homophobic bullying is to give off the entirely unacceptable view that it's "OK to be gay", and we wouldn't want young people thinking that, now would we? Far better for them to be driven to suicide.

That's why Bill has to hide behind lies, propaganda and distortion to prop up his silly ideology. Inject a bit of truth and the whole stinking edifice falls down.

Here's a comment I posted on Bill's Culturewatch site about the lunatic "ex-gay" "therapy" that Bill and his cronies are such fans of:

All the points are simple ripostes to Bill's earlier assertions.

Unsurprisingly, the comment, under a pseudonym, wasn't posted. It contains far too much truth, and Bill wouldn't want his readers exposed to anything that counters his lies and propaganda. He's no interest in debating the facts or inconvenient truths. He's only interested in pushing his lies.

For an excellent summation of the whole sorry money-making institution of "ex-gay" "therapy" see the film This Is What Love In Action Looks Like.

The director asked the religious right who still propagate this nonsense to put forward their views on film, with the legally-binding promise that they could veto their parts in the film if they weren't happy.

All of them refused.

It's very difficult to hide behind lies and fraud when honest people call you up on it.

Is it just me or are fewer and fewer comments appearing on Bill's blog? Maybe he invents these people himself just to look more popular? I like to think blogs like this contribute to people seeing through the religious right and the appalling charlatans like Bill Muehlenberg, and see them for the self-interested bullies they really are.

The censorship and dishonesty is because they know the truth isn't on their side, and they are shit-scared people are beginning to see through them.

Reasons to celebrate: not many people give a damn about Bill Muehlenberg's lies. The day he stops hurting people, I'll stop keeping this blog and exposing him.

Tuesday, 8 May 2012

Bill Muehlenberg: "Nice Guy", apparently (according to Bill...)

Sorry for not updating this blog for a while. It's not for a moment to suggest that Muehlenberg has ceased his relentless quest to be the world's biggest tit; it's more that I haven't had time as I've been working flat out on a performance piece about religious fundamentalism. Bill's Culturewatch is such a mine of pure gold research.
 
 I couldn't let this one pass without comment though, in a recent article "Witnessing Social Suicide" (lovely polite title, Bill). Bill spent a day trying to persuade Australian government officials that if gays are allowed to marry THE WORLD WILL LITERALLY END IN A BIG EXPLOSION IT'LL BE COMPLETE CHAOS AND THE TRAINS WILL STOP RUNNING AND WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN. Bill is rightly acknowledged as a world leader in homophobia and loony religious fundamentalism, but he wasn't the only one speaking out against the PINK MENACE LURKING UNDER THE BED.

There were other representatives defending a retention of the current definition of marriage and denying the same to gay people. Bill is all bemused by the different ways in which they were treated:

 "When another group of pro-marriage speakers appeared after us, they received nothing of the hostility that we did. Why is it that I seem to bring out the hostility and heat in so many? I always thought I was a pretty nice guy!"

Bill is at a loss to explain how anyone could find him arrogant, argumentative, bullying, unreasonable, unpleasant and deeply offensive. He ACTUALLY THINKS he's a nice guy! This is a man who runs a website dedicated to spewing bile and hate against anyone who disagrees with him, but most especially gay people, and his every waking moment doing his utmost to make life as difficult as possible for them because his aim is to make sure non-fundamentalist Christians have no say in society, or better still cease to exist. 1% of his time is possibly spent disseminating the word of the Judean prophet he claims to follow. The rest is hate, hate, hate.

Pop over to his website and politely, restrainedly disagree with him on a minor point. Stand back and watch for the hostile and aggressive reaction.

Yet he actually claims to think he's a nice guy! Bill is deluded about a lot of things: that his religion is true, that sexuality is a choice, that the world and universe are only a few thousand years old, that evolution is a conspiracy theory dreamt up by liberals, that creationism is sound science, that you can't be good without believing in fairytales (only his fairytales, naturally), that all left-wing people are evil, that reparative therapy is harmless and effective: but possibly his most bewildering and staggeringly huge delusion is that he is a "nice guy".

Please, do tell Bill, exactly who has ever told you that you are "nice"? No, not including your invisible friend...

Wednesday, 14 March 2012

Bill Muehlenberg FINALLY admits he's a homophobe and lets his chums call them "fags"

After years of trying to persuade everyone that he has nothing but love and compassion for gay people and just wants to introduce them to his buddy Jeebus - Bill's finally showed his true colours in his article Homophobes Unite: We Were Born That Way

Bill's argument is basically that if homosexuality can be genetically determined then so can homophobia. This is the equivalent of saying if red hair is genetically determined then so is an irrational and all-consuming hatred of red-heads. Or black skin and black people.

Don't believe even Billy could be so stupid? In his own words:

OK, but then this argument must cut both ways. All those people out there who are adamantly opposed to homosexuality can also be considered to be driven by their genes.


There you have it, folks, as dear Bill himself would say.

If I am biologically predetermined to be the way I am, then surely the activists need to just learn to accept me for who I am and stop being so intolerant and narrow-minded.


No, Bill. There really is no excuse for acting like a smug self-satisfied cunt your whole life.

After a further thousand or so further idiotic words "shoring up" his "argument" you then get to the comments. David "paranoid schizohrenic" Skinner makes a clumsy analogy to smoking and invokes the word "fagphobia" in a clear reference to the derogatory term of abuse "fag" or "faggot" aimed at homosexual men. Two further commentors gleefully pick up on this, and the word changes to "fagophobia".

Yes, here are supposed Xtians happily throwing around a term of abuse.

It's about time Bill stopped pretending he was all about biblical literalism and converting gay people through "prayer" or whatever bullshit it is he stands for (he's very low on specifics in this area, unsurprisingly) and just come out and say that he hates gay people and makes a living from invoking fury amongst the pious about the gays and their unashamed behaviour.

He's no better than Fred "god hates fags" Phelps, and he's finally made this abundantly clear.

Of course, it's only the "other side" who engages in name-calling. Isn't that right Bill?

What a hypocrite.

Saturday, 25 February 2012

Bill admits what we all long suspected!

Muehlenberg spends his free time on gay websites!

He's admitted it in the article (absurdly titled, even by Billy's standards) Let's Kill In The Name of Tolerance.

And as I mentioned, these comments come both from the YouTube site, and from homosexual websites. Most people would never have seen such sites – but I have.


I can just imagine the scene in the Muehlenberg household. Bill thinks his wife's gone to bed so he quickly logs onto gay websites to tug one off. He just has time to put his dusty old cock back in his pants before his wife catches him red-handed.

"But, but I'm only doing it for research, dear, honest! And look at the language some of them use."

She lets it go that time; but the next time she finds him balls deep in a guy in their bed.

"It's just research, dear, for my latest article on Culturewatch."

Bill's favoured acolyte David "paranoid schizophrenic" Skinner is a regular presence on gay websites and blogs too.

It's not hatred that eats these guys up, it's self-hatred. It's the only explanation for this level of obsession.

Just get yourself a rent boy and have a good fuck, Bill. It worked for Ted Haggard. Well, after a fashion. And leave everyone else to get on with their personal life in peace.

Saturday, 18 February 2012

Bill in his own words...

After polite atheist Jamie Sargeson has spent the last few days running rings around Bill and oh-so-nicely tearing Bill's "arguments" to shreds, an embarrassed and clearly flustered Muehlenberg has finally banned the nice young man from posting on his blog.

His reason?

I will spend all the time in the world with those who are genuine, and are asking honest questions, and are sincerely seeking truth. But those who come here just to stroke their egos, to play their little head games, or to argue for argument’s sake I will not spend any time with.


Which basically means:

Agree with me or I'll censor you because this blog is an ego trip for me and I'm not remotely interested in engaging in honest debate or open discussion. All I want to do is peddle my propaganda and lies. And it's my blog so ner-ner-ne-ner-ner.


And yet Bill expects people to take him seriously! He's a fucking joke. No wonder he avoids public debates. He's appalled by the idea anyone could disagree with him and terrified of anyone proving him wrong. He's an intellectually dishonest coward, as Jamie Sargeson has now discovered.

Friday, 17 February 2012

Muehlenberg the LIAR

In his latest hate-fuelled nonsense, Standing Up To The Crusading Secularists (you know, those evil people who don't want religious nutjobs to run countries or be given all their own way to persecute the infidel) Muehlenberg trots out the same tired lie that the subtitle of Charles Darwin's On The Origin Of Species belies evil racism that directly led to eugenics.

At least, credit where it's due, liar Muehlenberg gets the title of Darwin's book right this time. As I have documented previously on this blog, he has consistently peddled the lie that it's titled "On the Origin of the Species", in other words, the human race. Again, because it would serve his propaganda purposes better if the lie was true. Shame it's just a lie.

Here's what one of his godbots has to say about Darwin's tome:

...the sub title of the Origin of the Species, reveals a dark truth about the book, since it basically shows up the philosophy of Hitler since it talks about the preservation of the favoured races, which Hitler tried to do with great efficiency.


to which Muehlenberg instantly replies:

Yes very good point Ian. Since poor Richard [Dawkins] did not even know the name of the title of the greatest sacred text for the misotheists, let me share it here for everyone. It certainly is a chilling title indeed:

The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Charles Darwin, 1859)


There are actually three lies in there. The first is that his godbot commentator has a good point - he doesn't - On The Origin of Species contains not a single analysis about the human race, merely a tantalising reference that had to wait for Darwin's The Descent of Man to be revealed. The second is that the subtitle is "chilling". The third is that Richard Dawkins didn't know the full title. He was on the spot in a live broadcast and the full 21 words momentarily slipped his mind but he made a very accurate summation.

Being generous, you could say that perhaps dear old Billie is just being an ignorant fuckwit. He clearly hasn't read any of Darwin's work, least of all his seminal tome, as he clearly demonstrates he lacks the intelligence and scientific understanding to take it in. But the point is that Bill has been called up about this lie plenty of times before, but he continues to peddle it because it suits his agenda of making anyone who accepts the fact of evolution seem to be comparable to Hitler.

I politely posted FOUR TIMES, using different names, different writing styles and over the course of 24 hrs on Culturewatch, pointing out that Bill was "mistaken" (lying, actually) about the subtitle of Darwin's book. All of them "awaited moderation" before disappearing into the ether.

Here's your proof:



Why is it vitally important for Bill to hide the truth from his godbot readers?

Was the comment angry, hate-fuelled, disrespectful? No - instead it contained a quality that Bill simply couldn't possibly allow his readers to see - THE TRUTH! To post that would be to demolish his whole silly position, so he hides behind a lie and hopes his ill-educated followers don't spot it.

Bill is quite happy to lie when it serves his agenda, which is fine, but considering he bangs on and on about "the importance of getting the truth out there" - to deliberatly bury the truth and instead promote a clear LIE, reveals Bill Muehlenberg out to be what I have always claimed - A HYPOCRITE.

Instead, Bill has spent his time lambasting a polite non-believer called Jamie Sargeson who has risen above Bill's bile and posted several times about why he thinks the truth claims of Xtianity are BS. In return for this, Bill writes back with his usual aggressive patronising tone to anyone who dares to disagree with him. Here are some choice quotes:

Any decent wife would give you a good kick in the backside for that sort of foolishness... if everything is simply absurd, then so too are your comments... respectfully, we now all know why you are not married. And can I submit, as long as you hold to such patently ‘absurd’ and unhelpful views, you never will be... might have a case of false modesty here... I would not be too pleased with yourself for embracing this dead-end belief system... with your rather subhuman views on love, you will never find any close loving relationship... you really have nothing to be proud about here, or anything worth sharing here... your beliefs seem to be more of a silly ego trip than anything else... it is a bit hard for us to take you seriously here. Your openness to truth will be determined by how soon you jettison this futile and self-destructing worldview... the moral poverty and bankruptcy of your position is getting more obvious with each passing comment... your hubris is showing up again I am afraid... For heaven’s sake, you have only been on the planet for two lousy decades. Wait til some real issues creep into your life. I don’t think your hollow worldview will get you very far them... your ego seems to be showing here a bit. A little more humility... You can admit that you are not the centre of the universe [where does Jamie claim he is, Bill?]... not give us this silliness...

Every word Bill writes drip with unduly condescending arrogance. But of course he hates mud-slinging and abuse, right? Unless it's him doing it. But then he is a prize hypocrite.

With every post Bill makes his beloved beliefs seem more and more ugly, arrogant, extremist and foolish. No wonder the only regulars he attracts to his "ministry" are nasty little shits like middle-aged virgin Marc Rabich and paranoid schizophrenic David Skinner. Does Bill never stop to wonder why he doesn't attract young blood to his way of thinking?

Keep up the good work, Bill. You are doing more to hasten the demise of your idiotic death cult than a thousand Richard Dawkinses could do!

Friday, 3 February 2012

Muehlenberg's "Victim card" hysteria

I read many of Muehlenberg's articles in order to keep this blog, but, credit where it's due, he still sometimes manages to surprise me with the extraordinary depths of delusion his mind can reach.

This is a priceless gem from his article Yet More Scenes From the Passing Madness, in which, as you'll probably guess, anyone who doesn't agree with his theocratic extremist ideology is "mad" or pimping an "agenda".

He once again calls atheists, rationalists, secularists and humanists "god-haters". His mind is so impoverished by superstition that he genuinely can't understand why anyone wouldn't follow his crazy beliefs, and such a paranoid delusional that we must all "hate" a non-existent deity. No, Bill, we hate the way you try to force your ideology on everyone else.

Bill's articles are always brimming with hatred for non Xtians, and full of such witless slurs against whole groups of people. Yet if someone were to call him or his Xtian buddies "crazy", or "humanist-hating" or the like, he cries foul and claims he's being bullied.

Take this extraordinary outburst and the most ridiculous instance yet of Muehlenberg playing the victim card. Contributor Eric Pickles writes:

Do you really wonder why you are loathed and a laughing stock when you make false comparisons like that?


which is as personal as he gets. Here's Muehlenberg's response:

I know all too well about your side’s loathing. The hate mail and death threats from you guys are a daily occurrence for me. So much for all your whining about tolerance and acceptance.


What fucking planet is Muehlenberg on? Pickles called him "loathed" - a statement of fact (and well earned, Bill) and calls him a "laughing stock". Where, oh, where, Billy boy, does Pickles THREATEN TO KILL YOU?

Muehlenberg's mind is so paranoid and delusional he ACTUALLY EQUATES SOMEONE DISAGREEING WITH HIM AS A DEATH THREAT!!!

Pickles then disappears completely from the comment thread, so one can only assume he was at the receiving end of more "Muehlenberg censorship", or realised from the initial response that trying to reason with Bill is about as useful way of spending your time as trying to melt diamonds in a pan of boiling water.

Muehlenberg regularly gives out slurs, defames whole sections of society and resorts to name-calling. Then he plays the victim card when he receives the same in return.

There's a simple explanation for this.

Muehlenberg is a HYPOCRITE.

He's also a bigoted cunt. I'm not being hypocritical because I don't expect Bill to like me or what I say about him. He's earned the attacks.

If he keeps on giving it out, he should learn to take it.

Thursday, 26 January 2012

Muehlenberg Moans About MSM Censorship

Bill's moaning that the mainstream media has the temerity to publish opinions which he personally disagrees with, and what's more they don't always publish opinions which he subscribes to (you know, for balance, like all gayness must stop because bum sex makes baby jesus cry).

Does Bill practice what he preaches? We all know he's always crying about those nasty secularists (sane people) posting comments on his website that he finds disagreeable. He's forced to censor them for reasons of decency, right? I mean we couldn't have foul language reaching the delicate Xtian ears of David "there can't be both Xtians and gays; one of us must go" Skinner, or Mark "middle-aged virgin" Rabich, could we?

Bill wouldn't just censor a polite comment that happens to raise an awkward issue he would rather avoid, because it would make his whole argument crumble?

Would he?

Would he be such a hypocrite?



You may notice in the comments that "Angela" (who's on the sane side) "calls his bluff" (to use a favoured Billism) and points out that he flagrantly lies in his article. He claims the New York Times failed to cover a story, and Angela duly supplied a link.

Bill responds in a bizarre fashion, by publishing Angela's comment and then changing the goalposts so that he can go off on an insane rant at her, during which he claims that he meant the printed version of the newspaper, and obviously not the online version (which he doesn't make remotely clear in the article) and thus claims a victory for himself. He tells Angela to "go to the back of the class". This guy is just insane. Does he ever listen to himself?

This is precisely why you can never reason with Bill, and any attempt to will fail. If he doesn't like what you say, he'll change the argument, bully you, or censor you altogether. You cannot reason with somebody who doesn't understand what reason is.

As for Bill's censorship of science facts that don't support his agenda, he's the same hypocritical religionist, claiming evolution doesn't exist and the earth is only a few thousand years old, but happy to use computers, take antibiotics, drink fresh water and all the other modern luxuries an actual scientific understanding of the world has brought about. Yet if he was right and had his way, we'd all be pastoral nomads in Iron Age Judea. Bill's welcome to fuck off and live in a mud hut, but don't try to drag the rest of us with you, there's a good fellow.

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

Three strikes and you're out...

From the same article, When the Hate Pours In, I just noticed this gem from David Skinner, talking about posting on Pink News:

I also have contributed to the Pink News in the UK and not surprisingly have been banned many times.


If you read the link he provides he gets an uncensored run!

Bill's policy on Culturewatch is "three strikes you're out". This means that you have three attempts to agree with Bill, and if you still have the audacity to disagree, you're banned from Culturewatch for life. See my blog posts on Culturewatch censorship for proof that it's not "abuse" but disagreement that leads to a Billy ban, since you're clearly "a troublemaker" and "not searching after the truth".

What hypocrites these idiots are.

Here's another gem from Skinner, possibly the most common abuse directed at gay people:

The condition of homosexuality is essentially a rage against nature, reason, justice, the truth and a shaking of the fist against God. Forget your sensitive artistic homosexuals who translate their love into paedophilia, let us concentrate on the violence of sadomasochism, murders within the so-called homosexual community, serial murders, suicide, the brutality of Ernst Rohem, the architect of Hitler’s storm troopers and that of sexually perverted Roman Emperors, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Christians.


And to think decent, reasonable, adjusted, educated and intelligent people could possibly tell these lovely people to go fuck themselves and their narcissistic delusions.

Boo-hoo, those poor picked on Xtian fundies...

Poor little Bill. He's just published a self-pitying article, "When the Hate Pours In".

Oh what a cruel and unreasonable world where somebody devotes their life to spreading lies and hatred about minorities only for some nasty, spiteful godless heathens to point your bigotry out to you.

Serial homophobe and deranged schizophrenic David Skinner gives Bill his full support:

I have contributed to the Pink News in the UK and not surprisingly have been banned many times. I also have a store of filth and hatred directed at me personally. I don’t keep this as some kind of unforgiving grudge, but it is vital that we document everything and thus are able to use it as evidence, when necessary.


Skinner helpfully provides a link to the original article on a gay news website:

www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/04/20/gay-cure-conference-to-be-held-in-london/

There, if you're minded, you can find the following nauseating ravings from the fingers of Mr Skinner:

“Why did Garry Frisch and Kevin Greening commit suicide if the homosexual lifestyle was such a load of fun?”

“You are religious and you worship yourself and the orgasm. ”

“Finally, Simon, what is wrong with hatred? What right have you tell me what I must like and what I must not like? Where are my human rights? What stiff -necked and bulging eyed arrogance! Or must I only like what you like?”

” Above all I have a deep and smouldering hatred of those who would treat children as goods and services and lead them into a life of disease, degradation and an early grave, like Gary Frisch and Kevin Greening. For that I am prepared to take up arms, just as our parents did against Naziism which had its roots in the homosexual, Ernst Roehm.”

“Your beliefs surrounding homosexuality have not a shred of scientific evidence.”

“Why, Simon, should the views of a minority group, such as the homosexuals be allowed to oppress the majority with threats of public humiliation, loss of job, physical violence, police oppression and the possibility of seven years in prison, simply for saying “Don’t pervert our children ?”

“What homosexuals really rage against is not Christians, Muslims, Hindus or those of no religious persuasion, but their own conscience, for deep down they know that homosexuality goes against the created order.”


This is a man who, let us not forget, has also said, of Xtians and gay people:

“We cannot both exist. One of us has to go.”


The question is: WHAT THE FUCK DO THIS HATEFUL NUTTERS EXPECT?

Sorry, I gave way to slack-jawed bewilderment that anyone could be as stupid as Bill and Skinner to genuinely think their bigotry and campaign to eradicate homosexuality could be met with anything other than warmth and kisses.

Pink News contributor Zia Petra puts it perfectly:People suffering from homophobia want it both ways, they want to be able to name-call and insult and they want people to lie down and accept it!

Exactly right! And when governments take away their "rights" to dictate to others who they can be, who they can spend their lives with and what they do in the privacy of their own homes, they cry loudly that they are being oppressed and their freedoms taken away.

Just like those good decent rednecks whose human rights to lynch blacks was cruelly taken from them by oppressive governments.

What makes me so fucking nauseous about the likes of Skinner and Bill is that they want so badly to erase all trace of any minority who doesn't adhere to their worldview from the face of the planet.

They're Nazi scum.

Sunday, 15 January 2012

More Lies and Hypocrisy from Bill Muehlenberg

Bill's "What to do with the truth" article has amassed so far 68 comments. That's because he's (after a quiet few articles on theology) whipped up his homophobic hate to new levels.

The article labels anyone who believes in equality for gay people "the gaystapo", and states as "truth" the offensive fallacy that gay people "choose" to be attracted to members of the same sex and could easily become straight if they wanted to, all they need to do is become Xtian. PERHAPS YOU CAN GIVE DETAILS, BILL?

I wasn't going to write about this article until I saw how many comments, most of them vile, bigoted rants by Muehlenberg's deluded cronies, until I had a message from David Eggs, who commented on the article:

What do you make of the inconvenient truth that professional bodies of counsellors and psychotherapists claim that “reparative therapy” is ineffectual at best and dangerous at worst?


You probably guessed Bill's reply:

As I fully document in my book, several “professional” bodies have been steamrolled and bullied by the militant homosexual lobby into changing their tune on this.


Sure, that's right, Bill. Professional bodies are regularly bullied into submitting to pressure groups; it's nothing to do with the truth of homosexuality being innate, harmless, not a problem and nothing that can be changed. But then Bill prefers to believe in "liberal conspiracy" for anyone who disagrees.

David asked Bill how many copies of his book he had sold. Bill's pompous reply was:

Exactly how many books have you sold lately?


David tells me he replied stating that he works in education and has co-authored several books with a wide readership.

Unsurprisingly, Bill censored this comment!

Bill HATES it when someone gets one over on him. Far better to silence them and pretend to his cronies that he had the last word. Bill is so insufferably arrogant.

Despite Bill name-calling everyone who disagrees with him, he then pulls the standard religious "poor me" card by wailing that people write nasty comments on his nasty blog. He fully expects to write his hate-fuelled shit with impugnity. When he's called up on his bullshit he takes offence and claims his religious freedom is under threat. Bill Muehlenberg is a prize moral coward and bully. The religionists always want the best of both worlds.

The truth is that Bill isn't content to live and let live with any gay person, atheist, Muslim, or any form of non-Christian. He and his inner circle alone know the truth, and until everyone converts to his specific intolerant, evolution-denying, narrow theocratic world view, he'll continue to throw out hate, insult everyone who disagrees with him, and then cry foul and weep into his soup when he receives the same in return.

Friday, 13 January 2012

2012 and it's bigoted business as usual over on Culturewatch...

Well we're now into 2012 and Bill's homophobic crusade continues unabated.

Over on his blog Xtian fundies continue to froth at the mouth about those damned gays. There's 46 comments on his latest homophobic rant. That's over ten times more (a paltry 4) on his previous article that was nothing to do with gay-bashing.

Good of the Xtians to show us where their priorities lie.

As usual, Bill is devoid of details about just how Xtian beliefs can stop people from being gay. He sticks with mumbo-jumbo about jeebus "turning lives around big time". Come on, Bill. We're all ears - what's your Xtian cure for homosexuality?

As for his policy, it's a strict three strikes and you're out. That means you have three goes at agreeing entirely with Bill or you're banned from his website for life. Troublemakers (people who disagree with Bill) will be censored. Bill's all for freedom of speech of course. Ah, wait, no. He's still a resounding fucking hypocrite.

Bill hates name calling too. Except, of course, when it's he who's doing it. "Gaystapo" is his favoured term of abuse for people who believe in equal rights for gay people. There's a word for that. Oh yes: hypocrite.

So, new year, but same old same old. Bill Muehlenberg is still a bigoted, hate-fuelled hypocrite with idiotic views about reality.