Via the Houston Chronicle, I’m guessing – a slide show of neon Jesus ads among others.

But at least the commentary under each seems to mock the message a little. Selling Jesus blessed watermelon, Jesus Saves! Bags of ice are only a dollar…

Oh, but Christwire isn’t actually freaking out about homosexual smurfs. They’re getting their freak on about how the sultry Smurfette is the only chick in a land of men. (Sic throughout – FYI: homonyms only sound homosexual, dear deer reed readers…)

My dear White Christian American friends, I am hear [sic - here] today to alert the God-fearing American public of yet another subversive attempt of the homo-infested Hollywood to further promote the homo-gay agenda. Homowood is resurrecting this 1980`s television series that was riddled with homogay undertones and, just as horrible, was targeted at none other than CHILDREN! I sputter with indignation to know that children across the country grew up watching this depraved example of Liberal-spewing, fag-loving, drug-use endorcing [sic - "endorsing"] propaganda. I just thank the Lord everyday that I was not a child in the 80`s [sic - 1980s or '80s] and therefore managed to emerge from the depths of youth without having been brainwashed by this disgusting, evil show that certainly must have been produced by none other than Satan himself.

Well, more than a few things are wrong here. Peyo, a Belgian, invented the Smurfs in 1958. According to Wiki, there used to be a Normal Smurf. Obviously he was unpopular…

I don’t even need to resort to Wiki to clear some other stuff up, though. Storks dropped new Smurfs off once in a blue moon, which doesn’t happen very often. Smurfette was designed magically by Gargamel, who had a real hate on for the little blue dudes. She was sent in to destroy them, a black-haired rabid little monster. But once she got to know her “enemies” she discovered she was on the wrong side of the whole business and through some other kind of magic became blonde and vapid and treasured by all of them for being a one of a kind thing. Sassette was later created by other Smurfs using Gargamel’s method, without realizing at the time how much Smurfette had actually changed. I always like that red headed little hellion for some reason. Sassy!

I don’t recall any drugs being used. They lived in mushrooms and tried to avoid being caught in Gargamel’s ridiculous plans. Brainy would say something annoying, Hefty would strong man his way into situations, and Jokey Smurf would manage to surprise his long suffering pals at least twice per episode. If anyone needed a kick in the ass, it was Jokey. Oh, and then Papa Smurf would solve all their problems while Vanity preened.

What a fun show that was. I miss that show. I found a couple decent quality Smurfs for a dollar at a flea market last year. I still have my other ones, plus a figurine, plus – if you can believe it – a Smurf blanket. No idea where the folks got that, but it’s a treasured possession. Love that blanket.

Well anyway, turns out a Smurf movie might be in the works for 2011.

All of those “little blue men“ running around, living in “mushrooms“ with their suggestively phallic white hats, and shirt-less chests – AND ONLY ONE, SINGLE SMURFETTE IN THE WHOLE GOD-FORSAKEN SHOW!!!!! Sick! Disgusting! Deprived! Shameful! Truthless!

… and the film is to be produced by homogay supporter, Jordan Kerner, producer of such homogay filth as Charlotte`s Web, George of the Jungle, Inspector Gadget, and Fried Green Tomatoes. If his list of credits were not proof enough of Kerner`s allegiance to the homogay agenda, he is also the Dean of a school of filmmaking at a “performing arts“ school that is, in fact, an institution for teaching American college AND high school students that homogayality is ok. This subversive institution is located in America`s own Holyland, the South, and goes by the name of “The University of North Carolina School of the Arts.“ The fact that the homogays would dare to infiltrate America`s Holyland brings a shiver of disgust to my bowls.

Christwire does the very same thing to me. Is this site for real, or for mocking people who’d really think this way?

I found a stat in a book I’ve now lost track of that stated that George Washington was bossing people around by the age of 15 for good purposes, and that most of the people on the Mayflower were in the early 20s and girls were old maids by the age of 25 and people still live with parents into age 30 now, but usually guys.

Maybe I saw that on the internet somewhere. I’ll have to look later. For now, two links – one to the Vancouver Sun: “Young adults more likely to get angry” and a history of adolescence as a means of describing the years between 12 and 20 anyway.

Are we letting kids be kids for too long?

The American Humanist Association has a simple message to send out to people this year with their No God No Problem campaign. It advertises the need to be good for the sake of goodness and includes Humanist contact numbers for interested people. From CNSNews.com about this:

“People of faith should view the Humanist displays at this special — even holy — time of year, with compassion,” said Kristi Hamrick, president of the Campaign for Working Families and spokeswoman for Gary Bauer’s American Values.

“Because of the blessings of liberty we enjoy as Americans, they certainly have the right to their strident displays of antagonism to faith. But at this time of year when so many of us are thanking God for our blessings, especially the blessing of his only Son come to earth for us, we need to pray for them.”

I don’t look at the ads as antagonizing anyone. It’s by no means a hostile message. It’s a reminder to anyone who doesn’t believe in god to still be good and includes the American Humanist Association site for more information.

Hamrick pointed out that the “eternal truths” of Christianity do not require validation by atheists and Christians especially should feel “empowered” to celebrate the Christmas holiday openly and proudly.

Celebrate it. We don’t care. Most of us will be celebrating a Christmas of our own design, too. I have Santa and elves and snowmen for my tree every year and Mom wants to pass out handmade gifts which means I have to think of something I can make in the time I have left that she’ll actually like enough to show off to friends and neighbours.

“I hope people will take a moment to pray for others when they see the (Humanist) displays,” Hamrick said. “Eternal truths are not dependent on the permission of the Humanists to be (true.) And I hope that people of faith will feel equally empowered at this time of year to express their own beliefs.”

Christmas, which commemorates the birth of Jesus Christ, should be a joyous time of year for religious Americans, she said, even if the Humanists don’t want to join in.

Everyone of any faith can express whatever they like in December. Christians don’t own it. Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, whatever you’ve got going on, celebrate it. Christmas is also a secular celebration to cherish loved ones, hand out gifts and eat too much. I should find out if Mom’s hosting Christmas again this year or if an aunt or someone else is taking it on.

“Christians are often told to hide their Merry Christmas greetings behind the blander ‘Happy Holidays.’ But a Merry Christmas it truly is, even without the Humanists joining in our celebration.”

Christians don’t have to hide “Merry Christmas.” They can say it all they like. I say it, too, but “Happy holidays” is more inclusive, as is “Season’s greetings” which has been in use since the late 1800s.

Off topic, but I’m putting it in while I’m thinking of it:

Ellen Clapsaddle is a favourite artist of mine. She made gorgeous art for postcards, especially Christmas related cards in the mid 1800s. There’s also an artist by the name of Louis Prang from around the same time who’s also well known.

I have no idea why frogs feature in this picture but I like the fact that only Santa gets the mention for why December 25th needs remembering. Enjoy the season however you see fit.

A petition is going around in California to ban divorce.

The U.S. divorce rate is 47.9 percent, according to data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics reports. That figure, however, does not include California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota because those six states no longer report their divorce rates to the center.

California stopped because of budget problems, said Ralph Montano, a spokesman for the California Department of Public Health.

While most people would not support banning divorce, it does make sense for couples to be educated about the financial and emotional commitments of marriage, said Dan Couvrette, chief executive and publisher of Toronto-based Divorce Magazine. The publication has a circulation of 140,000, including a regional edition in Southern California.

“It’s a worthwhile conversation to have,” said Couvrette, who started the magazine in 1996 after going through his own divorce. “I don’t think it’s just a frivolous thought.”

It’s set up by a comedian who wanted to satirize the sanctimonious bullshit behind the ban on gay marriage and point to some statistics that really do exist as proof that “traditional” marriage is in trouble with or without allowing gay marriages. Gay marriage can’t possibly “destroy” traditional sacred marriage any more than people in those marriages can now.

I need to round up some stories of superstitious belief for a skeptics meeting tomorrow night. I’ve requested a couple books from the library about generic superstitions but I’d like to find some more around the world ones before then. That’ll be homework for tonight, methinks, and I’ll report on Wednesday night’s meeting on Thursday.

Oh My Nonexistent God! It’s the end of the world!

The district’s decree ordered that only selections such as “Winter Wonderland” and “Frosty the Snowman” would be allowed, with a complete ban on tunes about Jesus and even Santa Claus.

Holy crap! Save Santa! How can Santa be taken away from everyone’s secular enjoyment of a gift giving celebration? Santa brings so much joy to all the little kiddies who believe in him! He’s forever putting up with smelly breath and sticky fingers and wet spots on his trousers when he willingly sits for hours in a mall to be there for the children! Oh it’s a travesty!

Bring back “Up on the Rooftop!” This is a major disaster! What on earth will kids do at their schools’ winter concerts if Santa isn’t allowed to be a part of them!? No Santa should mean no reindeer games either, but weirdly enough, the school approved “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer” for some reason. Santa is out, but a song that’s all about the Santafied traditions of this festive Giftmas season is allowed? And he’s even named in the song. I smell an even bigger scandal.

The law firm says the school’s ban was specifically aimed at preventing Christmas music, including simple instrumentals without words, during holiday concerts. As WND reported, the district had allowed the performance of traditional Christmas music for more than 60 years but in 2004 suddenly banned it.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Michael Stratechuk and his children in the district. The ban deprived the Stratechuk children the right to receive information and ideas, the suit asserts, an inherent corollary of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and academic freedom.

Thomas More Law Center attorney Robert Muise indicated the case is not over. Muise said he will ask the Third Circuit to rehear it on both substantive and procedural errors. If denied, the Law Center indicated it will most likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I wonder what that family has against Santa for why the kids of a whole school district are now stuck listening to the songs at home on their own time instead of during a concert intended for everyone, whether they believe in Santa or not. What a thing, and so close to Giftsmas.

They’re stuck singing about winter wonderlands and snow and cold weather, and it’s probably not even snowy or cold there. In the wintertime. Imagine that. And sleigh rides, too, I suppose – even though few kids will ever ride in one. Why are those still sung anyway? Oh right, tradition.

Ah well, whatever. If they want a winter concert without any reference to traditional holiday stuff, so be it. It’s not like they can’t get all that music at home anyway.

To finish, a cute winter poem I wish I wrote.

I made myself a snowball
Just as perfect as could be.
I thought I’d keep it as a pet
And let it sleep with me
I gave it some pajamas
And a pillow for its head.
Then, last night it ran away,
But first . . . .it wet the bed!

Or “Faith Sleeves” or whatever. Still, it’s an interesting way to bring the word to people. I wonder if they charge for the tattoos or removal services or do it all gratis. The article isn’t clear on that.

Gold Creek Community Church is attempting to be hip, fresh and current with today’s body art culture.

The Mill Creek, Wash., church is not exactly staid — booming 20-minute rock sets launch regular sermons — yet the pastors acknowledge this series was pushing societal norms.

‘We’ve said from the start that we are not advocating tattoos — nor discouraging them,’ said pastor Larry Ehoff.

‘We think of it as amoral. It’s neither immoral nor moral, it’s just the choice of a person.’

Too bad these guys and the rest of the religious world couldn’t pull back and let more choices be up to the person, not up to what a church claims is moral or immoral. Sure, people are going to make some of poor choices. Such is life. If churches were run less like strict, domineering parental units and more like compassionate friends offering shoulders to cry on, maybe fewer people would rebel from that lifestyle. I think there should be more acceptance of the differences, and less judgement when people want to live another way. Everyone would be better off, I suspect.

Child pornography is illegal and perverted and obscene and worth fighting against. People who film it, sell it, and buy it to watch need a good long stay in PMITA prison and perhaps some of their most favourite body parts should be fed to hungry badgers without cutting those parts off their bodies first.

Pornography with consenting adults is legal entertainment (and a serious money making industry, I might add), and not to be confused with any illegal perversions people may want to do and film for money.

Should kids have access to pornography? Technically they should be 18A or Restricted, yes? But really, sex is such a natural part of life that it would make more sense to let a kid sit through a porn film with a parent to explain why it has very little to do with the very real and natural art of lovemaking. The kid in this scenario would be horribly embarrassed to watch it with a parent and would probably get ill at the thought of trying to watch another one alone some other time. A past experience will always flavour future experiences, after all. A little education can go a long way.

Porn Awareness Week was suggested by f-ckingc-nts.com to counteract WRAP’s attempts to stamp down on pornography in general. It’s part of a Morality in Media movement, apparently. From a recent news release on that site, two thirds of U.S. adults claim internet porn is immoral and not harmless entertainment.

Morality in Media president Robert Peters had the following comments:

“There is a perception held by many that hardcore adult pornography has become acceptable in American society. But the perception is false. This is not to say that there isn’t a market for hardcore adult pornography. There is. But what primarily fuels the market is sexual addiction, not casual viewing. Furthermore, just because a person experiments with this material or on occasion succumbs to the temptation to view it does not mean he approves of what is viewed or of all pornography, especially when online hardcore adult pornographers often promote their products aggressively and deceptively.

No definition is provided for what constitutes “hard core” pornography, just that “most of” what’s commercially sold would be considered hard-core. If the telephone survey takers didn’t provide a definition, or description for that matter, then it would have been up to the person who answered the phone to independently decide what “hard core” meant. I don’t know what would classify as hard core. I’ve never watched a whole porn film and I suspect many of the people who were called could claim the same.

“Those harmed by the proliferation of hardcore adult pornography include women (many of whom are still in their teens) who ‘perform’ in this material, individuals of all ages who become addicted to this material, women whose husbands are addicted to this material, women who are raped, sexually assaulted or sexually harassed by males addicted to this material, children sexually abused by men who use this material to arouse themselves and to groom their victims, children sexually assaulted by other children who act out what they have viewed in this material, and females trafficked into prostitution to gratify the sexual desires of men who act out what they have viewed in this material.”

And the following is also true:

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters.
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after only two days.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

Is bread why people commit crime? Probably not. Is pornography? Probably not. Does pornography alter how people view women? Probably. But a guy who’d abuse a woman would still treat a woman like shit whether he watches any porn or not. Abuse is all about having power over people. The people who only feel powerful when they bully or assault someone else are going to be drawn to entertainment that glorifies that distorted world view and helps them justify that behaviour.

But here’s the thing sites like Morality in Media keep missing – it’s all about choice and letting people choose for themselves what they will and will not see or do. There’s more than porn on hotel televisions. Don’t go looking for the porn just so you can complain that there’s porn to be had and write complaint letters to the Marriott about how much porn they have on tv (which Morality in Media did). Cosmo is not the only magazine for sale at supermarkets either (which they also complained about).

Magazines and TV are optional entertainments. You don’t like what’s in it, don’t watch it, or make your own stations and publications for people instead. And if they don’t want to watch or buy it, they won’t. The choice will always be the consumer’s.

I don’t particularly care for how overtly sexual advertising has gotten, either, but I think it’s just as damaging (or worse) for kids when adults hide sex away and treat it as sinful to enjoy it, to experiment with it, and to crave it with their partner, married first or not.

Consumers don’t have to put up with it with all the advertising. We can picket if we want, write letters. Complain about content, write articles about obscenity laws and immoral hellishness all we like. It’s also up to the maker of that product to choose whether or not to care about what the people think. If enough people stood up and said they didn’t want to see or buy it anymore, and if sales tanked enough to prove people were truly fed up and serious, then maybe they’d change some things. But while sex sells, they’re gonna sell it.

So I’m not.