Comment Policy

Comment Policy: Comments are allowed, but please keep them focused on the topic of the post you are commenting on. Comments and/or spam not pertaining to the subject of a particular post will most likely be deleted.

Saturday, December 31, 2016

Welcome

[This is the permanent top post. Scroll down for newer ones.]

Welcome to my blog. I have always felt hesitant about starting one of my own, but I finally decided that I needed a place to discuss all of my views in a more open manner. So, for my very first post, I guess I should explain who I am and why I started this blog in the first place. Who am I? My name is Adam Taylor. I've recently turned 21 (as of writing this), and I have a strong interest in world issues. Namely, issues regarding religion, politics, science (and what I consider pseudo-science), what some people may refer to as "conspiracy theories," and (as I say at the top of this site) whatever else I can think of. My views are often perceived by people I know and don't know as strange. I've always sorta been that way. But I can safely say that everything I believe has always had basis and fact behind it. I know some might consider that my own opinion, but I would counter by saying that it is merely your opinion that what I believe is based on opinion. Got it? :) Even though I may believe some strange things, I'm not really strange myself. I'm very normal. I've just seen and heard a lot of very strange things. So what are my main interests these days?


9/11

Anyone with access to the internet knows about the debates about what really happened on September 11th, 2001. People who question the official narrative of what happened are labeled "conspiracy theorists." However, I would say that I don't fit this category, since I don't place blame on any particular person or persons. I really don't know who carried out the attacks. Why do I research this topic? I initially was very skeptical of the alternative theories surrounding the attacks, and didn't give them any real notice. Then in late 2007, after seeing a documentary on the History Channel regarding these theories, I decided to look into it more. After years of research, I believe that we have not been told the full truth about what happened that day. Although I have studied the attacks as a whole, my main focus of study has been the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. I believe the official reports on their collapses are flawed, and that they were most likely destroyed through controlled demolition. I've written extensively on this issue over at the Debunking the Debunkers blog, which is an excellent site full of resources to study the attacks. Here's some of my best posts and other writings on the subject:

On the WTC building collapses:
Debunking the Debunkers' Free Fall Fallacies
The Physics of WTC 7
Collapse Rates of the WTC Consistent With Controlled Demolition
Distorted Tilt Confirmed
2/25/11 Answers from NIST to Questions by Chris Mohr, Journalist

Responses to Debunkers:
Debunking Joseph Nobles: Freefall Speed
Debunking Joseph Nobles: 7 Problems With 7 Responses (Part 2)
Debunking Joseph Nobles: Other Buildings (Part 2)
An Open Letter To Ryan Owens (Part 2)
The World Trade Center WAS a Controlled Demolition
9/11 Truth Movement RIP?
Feeding a troll
Building 7 Explained?
Why AlienEntity's Measurements Continue to Misrepresent WTC7's Fall Rate
K.T. Penn Exposed
The Reading Comprehension of Debunkers...

Articles posted on AE911Truth.org:
FAQ #2: What about the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers? Wouldn’t they have disturbed the demolition devices?
FAQ #8: What Is Nanothermite? Could It Have Been Used To Demolish The WTC Skyscrapers?
Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality

PDF articles:
A Critical Review of the 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide
Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC

For more on why I started researching 9/11 and why I believe what I believe today, listen to my radio interview on PumpItOut Radio with researcher Jeff Hill and Debunking the Debunkers blog founder John-Michael Talboo.



Religion

I am an atheist. But I wasn't always one. Growing up I was raised a Methodist and attended church at least every other Sunday. But when I stopped going to church I began to question the claims of the religiously faithful. Part of what motivated me to start researching religion was watching the internet film Zeitgeist. The film talked about the history of religion, and showed a lot of evidence that indicated all religions, especially Christianity, appeared to be false. I wasn't sure what to think after watching the film. I then listened to what several debunkers had to say about the film, and all of them seemed to think that the movie got virtually everything wrong.

Of course I already knew that the debunkers were wrong in regards to the 9/11 section, but I wasn't sure about the religion section. I decided that I needed to look into this further. So I decided to read D.M. Murdock's book Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, which I had heard was the book she had written essentially in response to the Zeitgeist debunkers. After reading her amazing book, I realized right away how the debunkers were twisting her arguments and making outright false claims. Contrary to what many believe, the arguments presented in Zeitgeist are indeed backed up by strong scholarship and primary sources. Though I have not written much on the subject of religion and atheism due to my commitment to the 9/11 Truth Movement, I plan on posting much more on the subject now that I have started this separate blog. My one major writing on religion is a paper I wrote last year in college. In it, I argue that Jesus Christ likely never existed as a historical person on earth. My paper is provided in the link below.

Again, contrary to what many believe, there is sufficient reason to believe that the figure we know as Jesus never actually existed. I also have posted from time to time on the FreeThoughNation forum under the handle "S.T.F." The forum is a great place for researching the history of Christianity, and also does a fantastic job of defending the claims made in Zeitgeist. Though my intention is certainly not to offend anyone, I do believe we need to look past all these ridiculous taboos about not questioning religion. Whether we like it or not, there is probably no God. No one created us or the universe. But that does not mean we can't live a life of happiness and fulfillment. With enough time and research, I am confident that one day humanity will see that the same spiritual fulfillment found in religion can be also be found in science, which is what actually has improved our society throughout history. But please don't just take my word for. Do the research yourself. Question everything that deserves questioning. I firmly believe that every system that can be researched and tested should be researched and tested.

If you're interested in learning about what is and isn't true about religion, in addition to the book previously mentioned, here are some other books that have helped me get to where I am now:

Also be sure to check out the links I have posted in the atheism/religion section of this site.


My goals

Over the years I have gained a deep desire to discover as much truth about the world as I can. I've devoted myself to letting the evidence take me wherever is might go, regardless of whether or not I like the truth I find. The truth really does set us free, which might be one of the only useful things the Bible has taught us.

I believe that we have not been told the full truth about what happened on September 11th, 2001. I've tried to contribute to the great work being done in the 9/11 Truth Movement as much as I can. I was at the 9/11 Truth demonstration in New York for the tenth anniversary of the attacks. Being there in New York, it was more obvious than ever that we need to have a new investigation into the attacks to find out what really happened that terrible day.

I also believe that the religions of the world have done more to cripple our progress in society than to help it. Not only does the evidence overwhelmingly indicate that there is no God, but there is simply no need for him or for religion. We can find happiness and purpose with a completely naturalistic worldview. The time has come for us to except one true reality: that from the very beginning, God has only existed in our imagination.

My goal is to spread these truths to as many as possible. I wish to educate others so that we can make this world as sustanible and enjoyable as possible. I wish to encourage others to us emprical evidence and critical thinking in establishing their worldviews. Most of all, I hope you find some amount of value in what I say and write about. Even if you disagree with me, just the fact that you have taken the time to look into these matters is an accomplishment. It is only when we learn to work together and communicate with one another that will we finally have an ideal world. But we have to take that first step. This is our world, and we all have a duty to protect it.

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Myles Power's Review of "Where Did the Towers Go?": Not Fantastic, but OK

I feel no shame in admitting that I haven't read Judy Wood's book Where Did the Towers Go?. Nor do I feel shame in admitting that I'm likely never going to read it. I've said as much before. I made it crystal clear to her followers that if there's some new ground-breaking information in her book that proves DEWs were used to "dustify" the Towers, then maybe I'd take a look. But since her book came out they've been trotting out the same claims we've heard for years, which are all easily refutable

Still, I've always felt it would be useful to have a comprehensive critique of the book that I can point people towards when they mention it to me. And last year it seemed like maybe my wish would be granted by none other than my 9/11 interlocutor Myles Power. As some of you know, Myles Power is the chemist and science blogger who made a series of debunking videos on 9/11 a few years ago, to which I wrote my own rebuttals in response. Last year he turned his attention to Judy Wood's book, after repeatedly being pestered by her followers, telling him to read it. So lo and behold, he bought it, and made the decision to actually sit down and read the thing, FSM help him.

Before really getting into what I want to talk about, I should make it clear from the start that, despite our disagreements on this particular issue, I have no personal grudge towards Myles at all. He seems like a nice enough fellow, and I'm sure that were we to meet socially, we'd get along just fine. And I admit that I've enjoyed quite a few of his science videos (e.g. this and this are two of my favorites).

Furthermore, he's done an fantastic job at debunking a whole host of genuine pseudo-science and crazy drivel. This much should be obvious from some the reactions he's received to his debunking, such as being DMCAed by AIDs deniers and anti-vaxers, and thrown out of psychic readings by the actual psychic. In my book, anyone who can annoy charlatans like these to that extant must be doing something right. 

That being said, there's a few things I felt were in need of critical assessment in regards to his review of Judy Wood's book. You can see everything he's said or written about the book by following this link. From the start, it's obvious this isn't the comprehensive, point-by-point refutation that I was hoping for, but that's sort of understandable when you consider what exactly he's working with here. His reviews demonstrate that, despite its size, the book contains an enormous amount of padding, filled with large pictures and irrelevant material. He describes it as basically an "adult picture book," and from what I've seen so far that seems like an accurate assessment. There probably just isn't as much to go on as the book's size suggests, so I shouldn't be that surprised that his critiques are fairly short. That's probably all it takes to debunk her anyway.

As it turns out, there actually is some material in the book I hadn't heard previously, as Myles' review demonstrates. Unfortunately for the DEWers, it's some of the most pathetic (and frankly cringe-worthy) "evidence" I've ever heard. Basically, Dr. Wood argues that images of people falling out of the Towers and appearing to shed their clothing is evidence of a DEW being used at the WTC. No, that doesn't make any sense, and Myles does a great job explaining why. She also repeats an often heard claim by those who haven't ade-quately studied the Towers' collapses, that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed in 11 and 9 seconds, respectively. This claim has been debunked by people both inside and outside the Truth Movement repeatedly, so it really needs no further rebuttal. (For a more accurate look at the Towers' collapse times, see: Kenneth Kuttler, "Collapse Time Calculations for WTC 1".)

Myles also does a decent job of explaining why Wood's claims about the Towers being "dustified" is total bollocks. Wood apparently presents this photo of Ground Zero to demonstrate the supposed lack of steel debris at the site. Myles counters by pointing out that Wood never spoke with a single first-responder or member of the clean-up crew. This is a very significant point I've been making for years: neither Dr. Wood nor her followers have, or ever will, talk with the hundreds of workers who spent months clearing out the tonnes of steel that was present at GZ. I do think Myles could have rebutted this claim a bit more thoroughly had he shown other photos of GZ, rather than just the one aerial shot presented by Wood. The photographic record indisputably shows large sections of steel everywhere at GZ, which should be all the rebuttal one needs to show the steel wasn't "dustified." By all means, review the photos yourself. (And if you want to see a massive picture book that is worth buying, I highly recommend Joel Meyerowitz's Aftermath. Anyone who can look through that book and still believe the Towers were turned to dust is deluded beyond any hope.)

The one part in his review I disagree with thus far also just happens to be the section of Dr. Wood's book he somewhat agrees with. This is Wood's attempt to debunk arguments for more conventional demolition theories involving explosives and/or thermite. Myles admittedly says that Dr. Wood's debunking of this idea is "not fantastic, but OK," but still maintains she's right about this overall. But she's not. And Myles ought to know she's wrong about what she says. Granted, he should know this just based on my review of his video series, but one claim he agrees with left me shocked and somewhat disappointed with him. Myles says:
Perhaps the most fascinating section in this chapter is Wood’s rebuttal to those who say that thermite was used to bring the towers down. In my opinion, this is one of the more popular theories and is based on the paper published by Bentham Open journals, who have been heavily criticised in the scientific community for claiming to be peer reviewed, but accepting and publishing a fake paper generated using SCIgen. The paper the conspiracy is based on is called ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 Word Trade Centre Catastrophe’ and claims that in the dust following the attacks, they were able to isolate and identify thermitic material that may have been used to bring the towers down. Wood, however, does not agree and points out the impracticality of using thermite and that the authors of the paper never found thermite in the first place. Instead, they found the ingredients of thermite which are very common – which Wood clumsily rebuts by saying that if we were to find “chocolate, sugar, and nano-wheat (flour) in the dust that would not prove that chocolate-chip cookies turned the buildings to dust”.
Several points to consider here. First, the claim that the ATM paper has been "heavily criticized" by the scientific community is not the same as saying the paper's findings have been rebutted. To date only one (non-peer reviewed) counter-study has been published, and that study has been found to contain a multitude of problems. As for this claim about the journal "accepting and publishing a fake paper," that is exactly what didn't happen. According to Bentham's director of publications, the paper was only accepted in order to determine the true identity of the author. The paper was never published. Even the author of the hoax paper acknowledged that:
From this one case, we cannot conclude that Bentham Science journals practice no peer review, only that it is inconsistently applied. Earlier this year, I reported on a case in which a nonsensical article submitted to another Bentham Science journal was rejected after going through peer review.
For anyone who thinks the ATM was not peer-reviewed, take Dr. Steve Jones' comments into consideration.
This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. [Source]
Further, our paper was reviewed prior to publication by the Physics dept. chair at BYU -- and he approved it for publication. His peer-review was NOT under the auspices of Bentham. (This peer-review was done because two of the authors are from this dept. at BYU... and Dr. Farrer requested the review.) [Source]
But the claim that really left me shocked and disappointed was Myles' insistence that "they found the ingredients of thermite which are very common." He also says that "the data that was put forward... doesn't prove that thermite was found in the dust. Basically it looks for certain elements... but it doesn't necessarily mean that these [elements] are combined together to make a certain compound..." I'm at a loss to understand how Myles reaches this conclusion. From the paper itself (p. 15):
From these data, it is determined that the red/gray chips from different WTC dust samples are extremely similar in their chemical and structural makeup. It is also shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich grains and Al/Si plate-like particles and that these particles are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix.
Myles also presents this quote from Dr. Wood's book.


The ATM paper makes it clear that these elements were not merely found in the dust, but that they were chemically combined together. As a chemist, Myles should be able to recognize this fact. He may dispute exactly what compound these elements make up, but I don't see how he can claim they aren't combined chemically. Again, he should know better, and Dr. Wood definitely should too.

Another point Myles raises, which is apparently also a point made by Dr. Wood, is that bomb-sniffing dogs would have detected explosives in the WTC buildings. The problem with this argument is that bomb-sniffing dogs are not trained to detect nanothermite or other formulations of thermite. Furthermore, as I stated in my review of the "9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide" (p. 112):
A bomb-sniffing dog expert and trainer was contacted and asked about what the dogs are trained to smell. He stated that LackLand AFB lists the explosives that the military trains their dogs on, so ultimately anyone with intelligence connections could get that list, and know how to get around it. He also stated that bomb-sniffing dogs are not trained to detect every type of possible explosive, as there are countless possible formulations.
The expert in question stated, "There are hundreds of thousands of explosives, and quite honestly we do about sixteen."

Dr. Wood and Myles also raise the point about how "witnesses reported hearing explosions. But the sound of an explosion does not necessarily mean that a bomb was detonated. Everything that goes “boom” is not necessarily a bomb." Been there, done that. It's not just the sounds we rely on. We've got the physical effects and the chemical composition of explosives in evidence as well.

In conclusion, Myles' review of Judy Wood's book is decent, but not the slam-dunk refutation I would prefer it to be. In other words (Myles' words in fact), it's not fantastic, but it's OK. Despite the points I've disputed above, I still enjoy and appreciate Myles' review, and would definitely recommend it to people who consider the book to have any sort of credibility. What other sorts of insanity dwell within its pages? If Myles reviews more of the book, we may just find out. Stay tuned.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Why I No Longer Support Alex Jones

It depresses me to think I ever supported this man. I used to think he was one of our few voices of reason. A voice silenced by the mainstream for speaking the truth. And now all I see him as is what everyone else sees him as: a deranged lunatic that no one should take seriously. I know I'm late to realize this, but as they say, better late than never. Alex has clearly had a few screws loose for years, but the recent stuff I've seen of him has finished it for me. I've unsubscribed from his YouTube channel and his Facebook. I'm done. He seems to have all but abandoned the Truth Movement, only mentioning 9/11 truth when it's convenient for him. When it's not, he happily ignores it in order to appease whatever guests appear on his show. The most recent example being his interview with fellow lunatic and (FSM help us) presidential candidate Donald Trump. A 30-minute interview wherein Jones agreed with Trump about everything, including that "the Saudis quarterbacked 9/11." As much as I don't like it, debunker Ryan Mackey sums Alex well:
[I]f Alex Jones was not a driving force bringing the Truth Movement to the mainstream, it wasn’t for lack of trying. He authored a book and produced two videos dedicated to his 9/11 ideas before the end of 2002, and another 9/11-themed video in 2005, as well as several other video presentations where 9/11 was a prominent ingredient. After this, his focus faded, and over time 9/11 became less important to his broadcast and his own conspiracy views. It simply wasn’t his core interest or his best seller. Most famously, he declined to participate in the most influential Truth Movement video of them all, Loose Change – although years later, after the Truth Movement became more popular, he took a controlling interest as executive producer of the 2007 revision Loose Change: Final Cut. It would probably be more correct to state that Alex Jones benefitted from the Truth Movement than the other way around.
Again, I don't like it, but I agree.

Let's also consider his insanity in regards to his BS claims about Planned Parenthood. Or the hate-fueled, bigoted drivel he's spewed out (along with his personal Jesus Christ, Paul Joseph Watson) about feminism. Stupid, crazy, hateful. And now he is bold-faced lying about Bernie Sanders, one of the only honest politicians I've seen in my life. Like I said, I'm done. I simply cannot support this man anymore, and neither should you. Goodbye, and good riddance Mr. Jones. 

Friday, January 1, 2016

RIP D.M. Murdock/Acharya S.

I hate to start the new year off on such a sour note, but I have to address this. I have only recently learned that D.M. Murdock, also known as Acharya S., sadly passed away on December 25th of this year, after a complicated battle with breast cancer. This news has hit many people pretty hard, and I'm no exception. As my top post states, the film Zeitgeist was a big part of the reason I started questioning religious claims during my own period of self discovery, and was certainly the first time I was ever introduced to the concept of the non-historicity of Jesus. Acharya's work was largely used in that film, and seeing it made me want to get her books and read the information she had amassed within them. I am so glad that I read them, as they educated me immensely in this field of study. To date I have three of her books, which of course are far more special to me now. 


While Acharya certainly had her share of critics, and I'll admit she wasn't right about everything, I think, on balance, she was right more often than she was wrong. She more than answered her critics with Christ in Egypt, which I still consider to be her best book and my favorite. She will be missed dearly by me and many others who learned so much from her. At the moment, her family is in need of financial support to cover funeral costs and other expenses. Please purchase her work here, as 100% of the proceeds will go to her family. I just want to take this time to say thank you Acharya, for helping to open my eyes and countless others like me.

Also, the folks at Mythicist Milwaukee put together a great tribute in memory of Acharya, featuring a panel consisting of such prominent people as David Fitzgerald, Robert Price, and Aron Ra. Take a listen if you have some time.


Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Heat Softens Steel! CHECKMATE TRUTHERS!!! OMG! LOL! #REKT

Yo, the Truth Movement has been officially PWNED by some blacksmith dude. Holy shit son! That's the straight dope right there! How can we argue against this kinda ass whoopin? I mean damn, all I can offer are some petty little excuses that can't possibly match up to that. This would include:
  • The fact that NIST has no evidence of fire temperatures in the Towers above 600 ÂșC (see link, pp. 6-7).
  • The fact that the steel in the Towers was much thicker than this dude's steel rod.
  • The fact that no steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire (see here and here).
  • The fact that we have a vast assortment of direct evidence the Twin Towers and Building 7 were demolished with explosives (including peer-reviewed scientific evidence).
But again, I mean, damn! This guy's got a video on YouTube of him heating steel. Debate's over! What're we still doing here?!

Alrighty, satire is over. Yes, this is an almost entirely unnecessary rebuttal. But to be honest, this guy's little home experiment isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is his comment that "if it was a conspiracy, I don't care." Statements like these depress me, but they don't entirely surprise me either. After all, even someone like Noam Chomsky thinks this way, so, surpise surprise, of course the average Joe would too. That, children, is what we call "being part of the problem."

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Something Different: Obligatory Cat Post

Since it's generally internet law that you post pics of cats from time to time, I thought I'd take a break from my usual rants on God and politics to post some (IMO) rather cute pics of my cat. Meet Zimmie. 12 years old. High-pitched meow. Loves back scratches. Cute as hell. And loved immensely by her owner. :-)

 
 



Monday, November 9, 2015

An Open Letter to One Million Moms

Dear One Million Moms,

Greetings! My name is Adam Taylor. Hope you are doing well. I'm writing to inform you that I have read your recent article covering the American Girl controversy, in which the magazine had the audacity to feature a gay couple and their adoption of four black children. I quite agree that your outrage is well justified from a biblical perspective, and that such acts go against the wise wishes of the obviously good Yahweh. However, I feel you may not have been strong enough in your denouncement, leaving out several points that may be pertinent to the point you're trying to make. As you state in your article:
We must remain diligent and stand up for biblical values and truth. Scripture says multiple times that homosexuality is wrong, and God will not tolerate this sinful nature. American Girl doesn’t highlight other sins in their magazine.
You're very right to claim the bible repeatedly denounces homosexuality. Of course, perhaps your message would have hit home a tad more had you included the fact that Leviticus 20:13 calls for homosexual men to be killed. Clearly this would solve the problem all at once, since executing gay men would prevent any gay adoption from happening ever again. How can you go wrong there? Interestingly, this bible verse seems to get overlooked by those citing the bible in their objection to homosexuality. Here's you're chance to correct their mistake and make this point. I don't see why you shouldn't. It's right there in the "good" book after all. 

Furthermore, it may have done you good to point out what proper bible-based marriage is really all about. So many people seem to have forgotten that marriage is defined as one man and one woman. And also one man and 700 women. And 300 concubines. Or, hell, polygamy in general if we don't want to get distracted by specific numbers. Again, so many good Christians seem to forget these passages in the bible. Perhaps it is up to responsible Christians such as yourselves to get everyone up to speed with what the bible really says?

Also, you might want to emphasize how God never seemed to condemn lesbianism in the bible, just saying that those icky gay men can't do it together. Think about it. Lesbian parents. Hundreds of wives. Hundreds of concubines!? I guess moms really do know best! Praise the Lord!


In addition, while you state that American Girl doesn't highlight other sins in their magazine, you yourselves seem to have missed an opportunity to highlight a just biblical action these gay heathen men cold have taken. Given that all their adopted children are black, they are clearly descended from African Americans, i.e. people from foreign nations. If that's the case, you should have pointed out to these gay sinners that instead of adopting these children, they would have done better to make them permanent slaves. After all, the bible states people from foreign lands can be kept as slaves forever. Maybe you just missed that part, but it reads:
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness. --Leviticus 25:44-46
Clearly, if these gay men were to act responsibly, making these children slaves would have been the proper thing to do. Who are they (or anyone else for that matter) to disagree with God's word? After all, God's word never changes. It says so right in the book. And the slave-owners of the south knew this too. So why aren't more people keeping slaves anymore? I tell you, tough times for Christians these days, huh? They just don't seem to know what the bible says.

I hope you'll take my suggestions into consideration. These are hard times for Christians, given that they only make up about 70% of the country. Clearly in a very vulnerable 
condition. Obviously. I also warn you to avoid the propagandist "trash" (as you call it) that might change your views on this subject. For example, you definitely shouldn't read Dr. John Corvino's book What's Wrong With Homosexuality?, where he debunks every popular argument against same-sex marriage raised over the years. You should also avoid his YouTube channel and his videos which debunk anti-gay marriage arguments too. Furthermore, you probably shouldn't read Dr. Hector Avalos's book Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship. While he correctly notes that slavery is biblicaly allowed, for some reason he thinks Christians throughout centuries were wrong for supporting it. What get's into some people? Baffling. I swear.

Also important, do everything you can to avoid the detailed, peer-reviewed studies that show gay parents do just as well as straight parents raising kids. That's especially important.

Lastly, pay no mind to Amaya Sheer, the 11 year old daughter of the gay men, who made it clear that "IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS." What does she know? Christianity is so obviously true, and the bible clearly makes so much sense, that I don't see why anyone could possibly have a problem with it, right? I mean Jesus, why do so many people not take this stuff seriously?

I hope you find my suggestions helpful, and that your quest to interfere in other people's business goes smoothly from here on out.

Sincerely,

Adam Taylor, just your average baby-eating, dark-hearted, heathen atheist.

P.S. I should also mention that writing your article in the first place might have been a bad move. After all, the bible makes it clear that women are to "learn in silence" and that they are "not permitted to teach... she is to keep silent." As a group of "one million" Christian moms, you don't want to go against what the bible says, right?