Irreverent Secular Humanism and Pop Culture
https://audioboom.com/posts/6243370-s1e6-what-even-is-tithing
This episode NOT brought to you by Homestar Runner! http://homestarrunner.com/main10.html
Jon and Logan discuss the history, basis, and effectiveness of tithing. We also posit that economics isn’t a believer’s strong suit.
https://audioboom.com/posts/6221551-s1e5-what-even-is-god
Jon and Logan discuss Jehovah, the Judeo-Christian god, the idea of a trinity, and whether or not Jesus’ sacrifice was worthwhile.
Jon and his girlfriend interview her six-year-old son about his concept of god and “death god.”
Jon talks about the god conundrum and why believers can’t really resolve an inconsistent god concept.
Jon and Logan break down a verse from the New Testament!
Intro music by Austin Colón: http://austincolon.wixsite.com/music
We have a Patreon page!
http://www.patreon.com/wayward/
http://www.facebook.com/thewaywardwillis
http://www.twitter.com/waywardwillis
https://willisweb.com
The Wayward Willis podcast has taken the Pro-Truth Pledge and committed itself to providing only factual, verifiable information and, wherever necessary, providing corrections or retractions in a timely manner. Although this podcast deals in opinion and is intended to entertain and amuse, certain segments of the show present perspectives on politics and social issues that require careful and thoughtful examination and presentation of facts. As hosts of this podcast we’re committed to stopping the spread of misinformation.
In an age where opening a browser window or picking up your phone may result in an overwhelming flood of news and information from an overwhelming number of sources we feel it’s particularly important that we hold the sources of this news and information accountable. There is a tangible benefit to society when public voices deal in facts and there are notable consequences when they don’t.
We feel that the Pro-Truth Pledge is an appropriate movement with which this show should be associated and we’re helping to put the word out to other public figures as well.
Back in 2011 I wrote a blog post titled “Respect For Respect’s Sake” detailing the reasons why a request for respect without good reason is invalid and not worthy of consideration. Over the weekend I was told I needed to stop calling Donald J. by his original family name, Drumpf, because he obviously changed it and I should show him some respect. This imperative was given to me by a Drumpf voter in my immediate family and I said I would neither do it on the grounds of a legal name change nor on the grounds of showing respect. I’d like to detail my reasons, as though any reasonable person would need help figuring it out.
First let me outline the reasons I don’t respect Donald J. Drumpf:
Now, to my main points regarding respect:
Joshua Feuerstein is a “Christian” pastor who has completely lost his mind over Donald Drumpf and has been reveling in the new era where bigots and morons are emboldened to speak what’s on their tiny little minds. In fact, I honestly don’t think you can call him a Christian anymore; he’s something more like a Drumpfian™. This has clearly become his religion. None of his posts to date have shown this to me more clearly than a recent picture he put up with Jesus hugging a dejected-looking Donald Drumpf in the Oval Office:
On May 24, 2017 in a high-stakes Montana Congressional election, Greg Gianforte (R) “bodyslammed” Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs and broke his glasses. If you’re asking yourself what Jacobs could have done that was deserving of physical violence, the answer is this: he asked Gianforte questions. Gianforte was apparently fed up with reporters dogging him about the American Health Care Act (AHCA) and its dismal Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score. Jacobs’ was unfortunate enough to be the question that sent Gianforte over the edge. Fox News reporter Alicia Acuna (yes, Fox News!) witnessed the occurrence and documented it the following day here. Gianforte won the election at the same time as charges were being brought against him for assault.
A recent story detailed an interaction between a customer and a Walgreens pharmacist where, due to the pharmacist’s deeply held personal beliefs, the customer was denied a prescription for a birth control drug and made to go to a different pharmacy to have it filled. It’s important to note that Walgreens did not refuse to fill the prescription at all; their policy simply accommodates individual pharmacists who refuse to do their job and “allow” customers to fill their prescriptions at another Walgreens location where, presumably, a different pharmacist would be willing to fill it. Another note: this isn’t just a Walgreens thing; their policy reflects laws established at the state level allowing businesses to exercise discretion for conscientious objectors based on the employees’ moral or religious beliefs. In order to confirm the veracity of the story, I wrote an e-mail to Walgreens’ customer relations department and got the following response:
To fairly resolve these situations, and where allowed by state law, we believe it’s reasonable to respect the individual pharmacist’s beliefs by not requiring them to fill a prescription they object to on moral or religious grounds. We also believe it’s reasonable to meet our obligation to the patient by having another pharmacist at the store fill the prescription. If another pharmacist is not on duty, we will arrange to have the prescription filled at a nearby pharmacy before the patient leaves the store.
This is problematic for a number of reasons and I’d like to detail them here.
Matthew Archbold penned an article in the Catholic Register today wherein he professes to have proof that atheism is not a “cool choice.” Given that premise alone, I wouldn’t really disagree with the guy. The decision to embrace atheism or not, if based on whether it’s “cool,” would be a poorly reasoned decision and demonstrate a thought process counter to what most atheists view as rational or based in logic. We, in the United States, appear to have a fascination with celebrity and perceived authority so it’s no surprise that famous, outspoken atheists can have an impact on people’s decision-making processes but I’d argue that if the “coolness” of these people were the sole basis for someone’s atheism then we’re filling a pool with irrational people that will ultimately undermine the rationalist basis for the atheist movement (if you believe there’s a “movement” as such). In order to “prove” that atheism is uncool, Matthew presents eight arguments against the choice. I’d like to break these down and discuss them.
I’ve addressed the Catholic League in a prior post, which amounted to a disappointing lack of action from an organization that seems to be content in its role as a repository for outdated views on the world and society. I really wish they would have contacted me.
In the absence of a good story to tell about Catholic visitors, let’s talk about the religious freedom to discriminate. Catholic League’s Bill Donohue makes inconsistent and ignorant claims about a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a teacher against a Catholic school. The teacher is a gay man who got married, was so happy about it he posted about it on Facebook, and promptly got fired. You know, for being married.
This “Hanging Out The Walsh” series will be an ongoing critique of Matt Walsh’s blog posts and podcast in an effort to highlight misinformation, blatant lies, and misapplication of religious ideas to the real world.
Mr. Walsh published an article decrying the political persecution of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress due to charges being brought against them for having misrepresented themselves, filmed discussions without consent and heavily edited them before release in order to present an argument that Planned Parenthood murders as many babies as they can in order to sell fetal tissue to research companies and, I suppose, make a bajillion dollars in order to fund their Satanic cult.