14 thoughts on “Feb. 24th, 2009 Hate Mail”

  1. Did I read this right, or did Tom actually say he’s OK with the Danish Mohammed cartoons because he is against censorship?
    If he’s OK with them why is he not OK with jesusdressup?

    I see no difference in the mocking of Mohammed in the media or the mocking of Jesus online, there is just as much evidence that Mohammad lived as a Man (not a prophet) as theres is that Jesus lived as a Man (not a Superbeing), probably even more.

    The reasons he is upset with Jesusdressup are the same reasons he should be upset with the Danish Mohammed cartoons…..but he is OK with them.

    He’s a hippocrit

  2. Stop making fun of me! I have feelings. It’s mean. It doesn’t make any difference how wrong I am or if other have perverted my legacy. Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!

  3. Thanks to the wonders of media, the entire United States has a skewed perspective on the Danish Mohammad controversy. Yes, it got out of hand when Islamic fundamentalists started making a huge fuss about it, but the original controversy was over the cartoons’ overt anti-Islamic tone.

    When I say anti-Islamic, I don’t mean the way NBS is anti-Christian. Think more how the Nazis were anti-Jew, or Israelis are anti-Arab. At some point you have moved beyond mocking someone’s religion, and are discriminating against them as a people. This is what made the Danish cartoons such a huge problem in the first place, as anti-Islamic sentiment in Denmark is a legitimate national problem.

    When people such as Tom call the Danish cartoons as an example of censorship, it makes me a little sick. Nobody is completely anti-censorship; I’m guessing that Tom would not be a fan of pictures of holocaust victims wearing funny hats being posted in an elementary school. That’s censorship, the question is what is legitimate to censor and what isn’t. If Tom can be offended about Jesus dress-up, I’m pretty sure he would legitimately be offended by the Danish cartoons were he ever to actually read them.

    Oh, and appeals to authority have got to be the most transparent rhetorical techniques in existence. “Great atheists like Dawkins.” Sheesh. Clearly he didn’t make the Cambridge debate team.

  4. I find it rather amusing that this Tom Markham is vehemently against censorship, but is quite prepared to try and censor your website and your views. He doesn’t sound like any athiest that I know. I too would be interested in seeing his ‘proofs’ of the biblical Jesus.

  5. I call bullshit on this “atheist society” in Cambridge.

    If this guy is part of a respected group think-tank, then he would have mentioned the Jesus Seminar right off the bat–or at all–and would have not avoided (or would have at least known) of the work of Bob Price (member of the seminar). He would have known that the ex-biblical references are highly dubious if not falsified.

    But it doesn’t matter! Because everything we know about Jesus is from the bible, everything we know about Jesus is based on the flying Supergod who walked on water and did magic tricks with wine. You take away everything magical about Jesus, and what we have left is the Gospels sans Matthew, which still is absolutely contradictory. We know that contradictions cannot exist, therefore we know the biblical Jesus did not exist!

    Therefore, what we have left is ZERO. What I mean to say is, a Man Named Jesus existed somewhere, and we have no information on him. So, comparing him to the Man in The Bible is meaningless. What does it mean to talk about him? NADA. We don’t even know if Man Named Jesus=Man Named Jesus who was executed for heresy, or horse-thievery, or whatever it was random man was executed for.

    Sure, there were lots of crucified people. But to seperate one of them out and name him Jesus is the SAME EXACT THING as believing in a God and feeling sorry for what said god went through as a human, like Hercules, if you will, who, it has been argued, is one source for the Jesus Myth.

    Now, I’m no Rhodes Scholar. I have a bachelor’s degree in theatre and music. I didn’t go to an ivy league chi-chi school. (Although I suppose the Cambridge Mystique could be mythos as well). If I can figure this out, why can’t a Big Important Richie-Rich Philosophy group from Cambridge figure it out? If this Big Smartie Philosopher’s group is what he says it is, then they think about more philosophers than one, namely Aquinas. Do they know that there are more?

    I have a link
    that might confirm his society, and I suspect that there are a few stray atheists in there who aren’t tolerantists. I suspect he failed to mention them. BTW, the society started in 2000, I suspect well after your endeavors.

  6. Ha–After that long-winded diatribe (as I am so wont to do) I forgot the one most important rule of my new favorite short duration personal savior: Bob (the other Bob) and the Church of the Subgenius, which is:


  7. You’re not allowed to partake in civilized thought, Bob. Back to banging sticks on rocks for you.

  8. Anti-muhammad is NOT anti “a people.” That’s ridiculous. Religions are not people. They are religion–an aspect of a person that is the easiest to change–easier than, say, one’s weight. Just as anti-Jesus is not anti “a person.” Missed the whole damned point.

  9. What people seem to have trouble understanding, is that you are not entirely focused on converting Christians. I mean it would certainly be great if you were to make some men of god doubt themselves once in a while, but for the most part, what you do is help form a brotherhood of atheists in the form of your fanbase.
    When I read your website(which I check regularly) I feel better, as an atheist.
    Atheists don’t have churches or special networks, there isn’t a special form of rock and roll specifically for preaches the ills of following a religion, what we have is a handful of comedians, that range from big names like Patton Oswalt, to the humble website host that bashes god every once in a while(you’re someplace in the middle).
    It’s great that you receive letters from christians, but your purpose in the entertainment industry is to please the young atheist with internet access, Not that you aren’t doing any help for the greater good, and I thank you for all the work you have put into this.

  10. Yeah I’m with Alleee on this one.

    It just seems implausible to me that there is this group of tweed coat, with elbow patches, group of Cambridge intellectuals, discussing the offensive permutations of Bob’s magnets, on the world populace. Also, I find it impossible to believe that no one in an such an educated group, would let out so much as a giggle, if they were discussing them, especially the atheist.

    Come on Tom. Have a nice chuckle with the rest of us. It’s fun.

  11. Wait one minute, to make fun of Lassie is just going too damned far.

    “Lassie died for our sins; that whomever believeth in her/him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”

    Tom Markham, How dare you make fun of Lassie, our precious Dog and Saviour.

    Tom you may be an atheist, but you will spend eternity in HELL!!!!

  12. You know, the Lassie game sounds kinda fun. Can you make it animated? Like, there’s this army of evil Lassie dogs and you have to shoot them. And little Timmy, too (0r whatever that kid’s name was).

  13. @Drew Hickcox:

    I realise this is a little late, but I just have to…

    It’s funny how you state that the US has a distorted view of the Muhammed cartoon affair, then go on to display a completely false and distorted view of it yourself.

    The original controversy was NOT over any anti-islamic tone. They were made after some guy couldn’t get anyone to draw Muhammed for his book cover, because they feared repercussions from radical Muslims. They were a statement that we would not bow for any religion, no matter the amount of death threats.

    Even ignoring the fact that Islam is not a people, how on earth could a cartoon EVER be a discrimination against a people? And no, there is no general anti-Islamic sentiment in Denmark. Of course we have our problems with racism, but can you name me one country that doesn’t?
    Just comparing racism in Denmark to the Nazi persecution of Jews is incredibly offensive and demeaning towards both Jews and Danes.

Comments are closed.