One Pingback/Trackback

  • Amy

    …Wow. I scanned through the emails in the archive and the contents call for a serious WTF?!?! Is Pastor Michael for real? The poor spellings/random capitalizations/semi-coherent sentences aside, his entire approach was disorganized and unprofessional. I’m glad the A-team pulled out because Pastor Michael clearly had his own agenda running in the background, and a fair debate would be the last thing on his mind.

  • Glacian

    It’s typical of the religious to be illiterate, belligerent buffoons. What’s scarier is when these asshats get trained in how to articulate themselves properly. A well-trained Christian politico-theologian is a nasty creature to have to deal with, but it looks like all you’re dealing with are clowns.

    The topic of discussion is, of course, ridiculous. While discussing the legitimacy of blasphemy as a matter of free speech is one of my prime areas of interest at the moment, to ask whether or not it would even fall into the category of free speech is, to put it simply, retarded. The topic should be more along the lines of “Should free speech be extended to criticism and mockery of religion?” or something to that effect – and, of course, we can always stick with the label of “Blasphemy” if people insist.

    “Blasphemy is an epithet bestowed by superstition upon common sense.” – Robert Ingersoll

    • LR

      Oy can we keep the insults to a minimum. Being religious and illiterate are mutually exclusive and neither is typical of the other.

      Back to the point at hand though. good for you for pulling out. He was obviously trying, in a really pathetic way, to pull guerrilla tactics on you.

      • Jacques

        I wouldn’t say they are mutually exclusive – just as being an atheist and being either literate or not also aren’t – but they’ve got nothing to do with each other (which was what your point was, I imagine?). But thanks, LR – that’s certainly how it appears, and this sort of thing does civilization no favours.

      • Glacian

        Let’s not confuse political correctness with facts, nor say that it does us no favors to point out the truth – it simply *not true* that being an atheist has “nothing to do” with being literate, nor is it true that being religious and being illiterate are mutually exclusive. The more educated – and the more literate – someone is, the more likely they are to become an atheist. This is simply a statistical fact.

        There is indeed a correlation between illiteracy, lack of education, and lack of intelligence with religiosity. From the fact that someone is religious, we can predict with greater than chance likelihood that they are illiterate or unintelligent, and vice versa. Facts are facts: religious people are, on average, less intelligent and less educated than atheists. So I must reassert: it is indeed typical of religious people to say stupid, incoherent things. Indeed, religion is undoubtedly one of the primary contributors to people saying stupid, incoherent things and has been a powerful force in the world for impeding education and literacy.

        In reality, what does civilization no favors is to continue to pretend that there’s no link between religiosity and a host of negative factors both for the individual and for the values religious societies as a whole maintain and promote.

        • Jacques

          Glacian: I agree with you entirely. My point was simply that there’s no necessary connection. In this case, I do believe that the correlation indicates probable causation, and that there is enough data to support that claim. And trust me on this: being PC is the last of my concerns.

  • Jacques

    It gets funnier (in a tragi-comic way, of course): we’ve just received this from Michael (Pastor):

    are you people serious? really?

    why pull out? where is Tauriq who agreed with me?

    why did you wait for the last minutes and search for reasons? now i can see the type of people are Atteists. so, i will consults all our people,

    and i will reply to you.

    no body has Treaten you, i said to you we have issues that have to be cleared. i am just asking you why do you run away? this is not treatening and you showing us how disappointing you can be, so no one can trust even your teachings of Atteism. don’t change the Topic: The Topic is that you have Blasphemed, and we want you to explain that according to your rights and ideas!!! This proves to us that we are right and you are Wrong!!!!!!

    But, i tell you that if you pull out for your pretending reasons, i will have the answer for you and you will give account to that.

    i am cancelling the Meeting! you have lost before the Time! Hopefully you will no longer Treaten Christians with your Harmful Ideas!
    because we are winners over Atteists from This Day!!! it looks like Jacques already believe in God, because He mentioned that God is Love and Christians are loving. how does He knows that and confess that without believeing it.

    i will give you the answer after the meeting i will have with our people.



    So he’s cancelled. Shame.

  • Amy

    Hmm. In the spirit of giving, I think I should send Pastor Michael a dictionary for Christmas…or, perhaps enlighten him on the wonderful spell checker embedded in MS Word.

  • Richard

    “in which his 10 year-old son accidentally shot a teenager in the face” – brilliant.

    For humor, add “[sic]” three times to each quotation.

  • Violet Greene

    Dear Pastor M,

    Since I know you’re reading Jacques’ blog, allow me to tell you what I think of you.

    You are a villain of the worst sort!
    I accuse you of being dishonest in your dealings with the Atheist and Agnostic Society.

    I believe that you were feigning interest in a FAIR debate with the atheist speakers, whilst trying to lure them into a hall packed with christians (people who share your world view) for a verbal public stoning.

    If you were honest you would have used the following as your title for this “debate”:
    “A witch hunt – starring two unsuspecting atheists”

    Pastor (and I use that title VERY loosely), YOU are what is wrong with christianity.
    You are yet another evil man using religion as a weapon against freedom and democracy – this is evident in your threatening emails and unbridled anger.

    I do pity you for you will never realise just how much you have missed the point!
    You claim that Jacques has twisted your words, yet every word you emailed is laid bare, unaltered, just the way you wrote it. If you deny this then you are also a liar.

    Please read this next bit VERY carefully (read it a few times if need be):
    The Atheist and Agnostic Society of UCT had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLES IN THIS YEAR’S SAX APPEAL. The author of those cartoons is in NO WAY affiliated with the society! Let’s use a simple analogy for your sake: Let’s say that a gang of Indian men were seen robbing a bank downtown; does that mean that ALL Indian men are to be held responsible for the robbing? Are you following Pastor M or shall I provide another analogy?? Let’s say a man raped a girl; does this make all men rapists?? NO! J
    ust because one atheist made a cartoon and put it in a newspaper does NOT MEAN that ALL atheists were responsible. I think everyone is really bored with your inaccuracy on this issue. Now please shut up about this and stop using the society as a scapegoat for your anger!

    I do hope you will stop emailing now – you are only serving to make a bigger fool of yourself and your religion. Furthermore, your complete bludgeoning of all things grammatical is appalling, but that can at least be fixed with a few English lessons; your archaic views and Dark Ages approach however is, I fear, beyond repair.


    PS: I enjoyed your line about loving Jacques – it was HEROIC – I could just see the angels emblazoned in heavenly light, trumpets blasting out the Chariots of Fire theme tune to the open skies all around your head as you typed it. I think you are mistaking love with guilt at failing to be a good christian. If what you have shown is love then hate is a more attractive prospect.


  • Jacques

    No surprises here: the “debate” went ahead last Wednesday, and apparently various false reasons for my and Tauriq’s withdrawal were cited. Ethics isn’t really much of a concern for Campus for Christ, it appears.

    • Richard

      I heard about that. What exactly did the so-called “debate” entail? Did they actually debate someone?

      • Jacques

        Tomorrow’s edition of Varsity newspaper will carry something about what happened – I’ll scan and post the article with a response on Tuesday or Wednesday.

  • Pingback: ()